Genesis Vol 3.pdf - College Press

GENESIS
THE BOOK OF
THE BEGINNINGS
Volume Three
i

Other Books in the
BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES
- NEW TESTAMENT -
0 MATTHEW-VOLUME ONE
0 MARK
0 LUKE
0 JOHN
0 ACTS MADE ACTUAL
0 ROMANS REALIZED
0 STUDIES IN FIRST CORINTHIANS
0 STUDIES IN SECOND CiORINTHIANS
8 GUIDANCE FROM GALATIANS
O THE GLORIOUS CHURCH-EPHESIANS
O PHILIPPIANS-COLOSSIANS-PHILEMON
0 THINKING THROUGH THESSALONIANS
0 PAUL’S LETTERS TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS
0 HELPS FROM HEBREWS
0 JEWELS FROM JAMES AND JUDE
O LCETTERS FROM PETER
HEREBY WE KNOW-THE EPISTLES OF JOHN
0 THE SEER, THE SAVIOUR AND THE SAVED IN THE BOOK
OF REVELATION
- OLD TESTAMENT -
0 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY
0 GENESIS VOLUMES ONE AND TWO
0 DEUTERONOMY
O STUDIES IN JOSHUA-JUDGES-RUTH
e STUDIES IN SAMUEL
O MINOR PROPHETS-HOSEA-JOEL-AMOS-OBADIAH-JONAH
- DOCTRINE -
0 SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VOL. I
0 SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VOL. I1
@I SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VOL. I11 & IV
0 THE CHURCH IN THE BIBLE
0 THE GREATEST WORK IN THE WORLD
Other Books by C. C. Crawford
Published by DeHoff Publications, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON ACTS
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON THE RESTORATION PLEA
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON THE CROSS OF CHRIST
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON FIRST PRINCIPLES
Published by Wrn. C. Brown Book Co., Dubuque, Iowa
e COMMONSENSE ETHICS
..
11

BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES
GENESIS
THE BOOK OF
THE BEGINNINGS
Volume I11
C. C. CRAWFORD, Ph.D., LL.D.
College Press, Joplin, Missouri
...
111
, .

Copyright 1970
College Press
iv

COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
art,, article
cf., compare
cla,, chapter
clzs., chapters
edit,, edition
e,g., for example
esp., especially
et al,, and others
#,, following
fn,, footnote
Gr,, Greek
Heb,, Hebrew
ibid., the same
i.e., that is
in loco, in the proper place
I,, line
ll,, lines
Lt., latin
infra, below
Iiztro,, introduction
op, cit., in the work cited
P*, page
PP., pages
pur., paragraph
per se, by or of itself
sect., section
supra, above
s.v,, under the word
trans,, translated
v., verse
vv., verses
vix, iiainely
vol., voluine

SPECIFIC ABBREVIATIONS
(B I B L IO G RAPM IC AL)
ACB Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Twentieth
American Edition (revised by Stevenson). (Funk and Wagnalls,
New York).
ACR Wilhelm Moeller, Are the Critics Right? Trans. by C. H. Irwin.
(Revell, New York, 1899).
AD J. W. McGarvey, The Authorship of Deuteronomy. (Standard,
Cincinnati, 1902 ) .
AOT Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament.
(Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1954 ) .
ARI W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel.
(Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1956).
ASV, or ARV American Standard Edition of the Revised Version
of the Bible ( 1901).
AtD \Gaalyahu Cornfeld (Editor), From Adam to Daniel. (Macmillan,
New York, 1961 ),
AV Authorized ( King James ) Version of the Bible
BA J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology. (Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, 1961).
BA Emil G. Kraeling, Bible Atlas. (Rand McNally, Chicago,
1956).
BBA Charles F. Pfeiffer, Baker’s Bible Atlas. (Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, 1961 ) .
BC J. W. McGarvey, Biblical Criticism. ( Standard, Cincinnati,
1910).
BCOTP C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the
Old Testament: The Pentateuch, Vol. I. Translated from the German
by James Martin. (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids).
BE George Gamow, Biography of the Earth. (Mentor Book, New
I *
American Library, New York, 1948).
BGJI Julian Morgenstern, The Book of Genesis: A Jewish lnterpretation.
( Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1927).
BMBE Ashley S. Johnson, The Busy Man’s Bible Encyclopediu.
(College Press, Joplin).
CC C. S . Lewis, The Case for Christianity. (Macmillan, 1943).
CDHCG John Peter Lange, Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical
Commentary: Genesis. Trans. from the German, with Comments,
by Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman. (Scribners, New York. 1868).
CEHS H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Experience of the
Holy Spirit. (Harper, New York, 1928).
Vi

CG Adam Clarke, Commentary: Genesis. ( Waugh and Mason,
New York, 1832),
CHB J, R. Dummelgw, Commentary on the Holy Bible. (Macmillan,
1909, 1950),
Conf. Augustine, Confessions, Pusey Translation. (Everyman's Library,
Dutton, 1907),
Cos J. A. McWilliams, S.J., Cosmology. (Macmillan, New York,
1939).
Cr Arnold Guyot, Creation, ( Scribners, 1884),
CS A. Campbell, Christian Sysiem. (Christian Board of Publication,
St, Louis, 1835).
CU George Gamow, The Creation of the Universe, (Mentor
Book).
CVSS Bernard Ramm, The Christian Viewpf Science and Scripture.
(Eerdmans, 1954).
CWB Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (in one
volume). (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1961).
DC James H. Breasted, The Dawn of Conscience. (Scribners,
1939).
DD H. W. Everest, The Divine Demonstration,
DGL Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram. (Augustine's Treatise on
Genesis),
DG William Robinson, The Devil and God. ( Abingdon-Cokesbury,
New York and Nashville, 1945).
EA Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action. ( Mentor Book).
EB Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible. ( Kregel,
Grand Rapids, 1959).
EB Isaac Errett, Evenings with the Bible. (Standard, Cincinnati;
now available from Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville.
EBG Marcus Dods, The Expositor's Bible: Genesis. (Armstrong,
New York, 1895).
EHS Alexander Maclaren, Exposition of Holy Scriptures: Genesis.
( Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1904, 1912).
ELD William Smith and Theophilus D. Hall, English-Latin Dictionary.
(American Book Company, and Harper, 1871).
EM Gilbert K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man. (An Image
Book, Doubleday, 1925).
EOM Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man. (Yale University Press,
. New Haven, 1944).
ET Ernest C. Messenger, Evolution and Theology. (Macmillan,
1932 1. L
FBM '0. T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses. (Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1943 ).
vii

FPOTC D. E. Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy at Oxford in the
Thirteenth Century. (Oxford University Press, 1930).
FSAC W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity. Second
Edition, (A Doubleday Anchor Book, 1957).
FYPR Hamlin Garland, Forty Years of Psychic Research. (Macmillan,
1936).
GB Charles Shook, The Gist of the Bible. (Standard, Cincinnati),
GBBD Charles F. Kraft, Genesis: Beginnings of the Biblical
Drama. (Board of Missions, The Methodist Church. 1964).
GEL Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. New Edition, Revised
by Jones and McKenzie. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1843,
1948).
GP C. E. M. Joad, Guide to Philosophy. (Victor Gollancz, London,
and Dover Publications, New York, 1936).
HC Robert Ulich, The Human Career. (Harper, 1955).
HDT Jules Lebreton, S.J., History of the Dogma of the Trinity,
Vol. I. Trans. by Algar Thorald from the Eighth Edition. (Benziger
Brothers, 1939).
HHH Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and Homerica. Trans. by
Evelyn-White. ( Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University
Press, 1929).
MSGP John Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. (Kregel,
Grand Rapids, 1954).
HHH H. I. Hester, The Heart of Hebrew History. (Wm. Jewel1
Press, Liberty, Missouri, 1949).
HW Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Uniuerse. (Harper
and Row, 1961).
IBG Cuthbert A. Simpson, Walter Russell Bowie, The Znterpreter’s
Bible: Genesis. ( Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952 ) .
ICCFTh James Everett Frame, The International Critical Commentary:
First Thessalonians. (Scribners, 1953 ) .
ICCG John Skinner, The International Critical Commentary: Genesis.
( Scribners, 1910).
ICCH James Moffatt, The International Critical Commentary:
Hebrews. (Scribners, 1924, 1952).
IGOT Merrill F. Wnger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament.
( Zondervan, 1951 ).
IH Rudolph Otto, The Idea ofthe Holy. Third Revision, trans.
by J. W. Harvey. (Oxford, 1925).
IHR C. H. Toy, Introduction to the History of Religions. (Harvard
University Press, 1924).
ISBE The International Standad Bible Encyclopedia. James Orr,
editor. ( Moward-Severance Co., Chicago, 1915).
viii

ISA Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam, (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, 1955),
JCHE Meade E, Dutt, Jesus Christ in Human Experience, (Standard,
Cincinnati),
Lang. Edward Sapir, Language, (Harvest Book: I-Iarcourt, Brace,
1921, 1949).
LAP Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, (Princeton University
Press, 1947).
LCL Loeb Classical Library of the Greek and Latin writings,
in the original and in English translation, (Ilarvard University
Press, Cambridge),
LD Harper’s Latin Dictionary, Andrews’s Freund, revised by
Lewis and Short. (American Book Company; Harper, 1879; copyright,
1907, by Margaret Lewis),
LIP Harold W. Titus, Living Issues in Philosophy. Third Edition.
(American Book Company, 1959),
LOTB Albert T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel,
(Sunday School Times Co., 1907)-
LOT Julius A. Brewer, The Literature of tliq Old Testament,
Third Edition, Revised by Emil G. Kraeling. (Columbia University
Press, 1962).
LP Alexander Campbell, Lectures on the Pentateuch. (H. S. Bosworth,
Cincinnati, 1867).
MC C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. (Macmillan, 1952).
MDNSA A Cressy Morrison, Man Does Not Stand Alone, (Revell,
New York, 1944).
MDCB Theodore Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief,
( Scribner, Armstrong and Company, New York, 1874),
ME George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, (Mentor
Book, 1951).
MFJH Max Lerner, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes.
(Modern Library Edition, 1954).
MG James G. Murphy, Murphy on Genesis. (Estes and Lauriat,
Boston, 1873).
MG Ralph H. Elliott, The Message of Genesis, (An Abbott Book,
Bethany Press, St. Louis ) ,
MH Paul De Kruif, Microbe Hunters, (Pocket Books, Inc., 1940,
1959).
MM Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker. (Living Age
Book, 1956).
MPR Samuel M. Thompson, A Modern Plailosophy of Religion.
( Regnery, Chicago, 1955).

MS A. J. Gordon, The Ministry of the Spirit. (Revell, New York,
1895).
MS Ernst Cassirer, The Myth of the State. (Doubleday Anchor
Book. Yale University Press, 1946).
MSH Rollo May, Man’s Search for Himself. (Norton, 1953).
MU Alexis Carrell, Man the Unknown. (Harper, New York,
1935).
MUB Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Modern Use of the Bible.
( Macmillan, 1924).
NBG C. H. Mackintosh (“C.H.M.”), Notes on the Book of Genesis.
(Loizeaux Brothers, New York. First edition in 1880; twentysixth
printing, 1959).
NBS Sir James Jeans, The New Background of Science. (Macmillan,
New York, ).
NMG Oliver L. Reiser, Nature, Man and God. (Wniversity of
Pittsburgh Press, 1951).
NMR George P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Reuelation.
( Scribners, 1890)-
NPW Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World.
( Macmillan, 1933).
NU Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe. (Mentor Book,
1957).
OG Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The One God. Trans. by
Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B., S.T.D. (Herder, St. Louis, 1943).
PBG Joseph Parker, The‘ People’s Bible: Genesis. (Hazell, Watson,
and Viney, London, 1896),
PC F, M. Cornford, Pluto’s Cosmology. (Harcourt, Brace, 1937).
PCG Thomas Whitelaw; Exposition, The Pulpit Commentary:
Genesis. New Edition. (Funk and Wagnalls, London and New
York).
PCH J. Bannby and
PGTH P. J. Cloag, Pt
PE Timothy J. Rrosna
University Press, New York, 1941 ) .
PM Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man. (Harper
Torchbook, 1961).
PNK Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a New Key. (Mentor Book,
1942 ) .
PPT Hocking, Blanshard, Hendel, Randall, Jr., Preface to Philosophy:
Textbook. ( Macmillan, 1947).
PR Edgar S. Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion. ( Prentice-Hall,
New York, 1946).
PR D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion. (Harper, 1957).
X

PURT Erich Frank, Philosophical Understanding and Religious
Truth, ( Oxford, 1945),
RD Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Pesert, (Farrar, Strauss, and
Cudahy, New York, 1959).
RF L. P, Jacks, Religious Foundations. (Rufus M, Jones, Editor,
Macmillan, 1923 ) ,
RI Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings
to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe
Greenberg, (University of Chicago Press, 1960),
RTOT Albert C. Knudson, The Religious Teaching of the Old
Testament, ( Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1918).
RS H. C, Christopher, The Remedial System.
RSFI W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites: The
Fundamental Institutions. ( Appleton, New York, 1889).
RSV The Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
SBG W. E. Powers, Studies in the Book of Genesis. (Christian
Alliance Publishing Company, New York, 1928).
SH C. W. Ceram, The Secret of the Hittites. Trans. from the, German
by Richard and Clara Winston. (Knopf, 1956).
SMP Selections from LMedieval Philosophers, Richard McKeon,
Editor. ( Scribners, 1929).
SOT1 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Zntroduction.
(Moody Press, Chicago, 1964).
SR Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption. (Christian Publishing
Company, St. Louis, 1868).
SRG James H. Jauncey, Science Returns to God. (Zondervan,
1961).
ST Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology. One-Volume
Edition, (Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1907).
?mas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
STS R. M. MacIver, Society: A Textbook of Sociology. (Farrar
and Rinehart, New York, 1937).
SUW Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, Science and the Unseen
World. (Macmillan, 1930).
TMB J. W. Monser, Types and Metaphors of the Bible. (F. L.
Rowe, Cincinnati, 1936).
TMV Sir James Jeans, This Mysterious Universe. New Revised
Edition. (Macmillan, 1943).
TSMR Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion.
Translated by Audra and Brereton. (Hen y Holt, 1935).
TP Nathaniel Micklem, The Theology of /
olitics. (Oxford, 1941).
xi

U3G William Henry Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis.
( Scribners, 1895 ),
UDE Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein. (Sloane
Associates, New York, 1948).
VS George Matheson, Voices of the Spirit. (Hodder and Stoughton,
New Work).
WLP E. V. Miller, Within the Living Plant. (Blakeston Company,
Toronto, 1952).
WMIA John Gillin, The Ways of Men: An Zntroduction to Anthropology.
( Appleton-Century, 1948).
WPNT A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.
In six volumes. (Broadman Press, Nashville, 1930).
xii

ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC ABBREVIATIONS
(BIBLIOGRAPHICAL)
(as used in this Volume only)
ABOT Aldo J. Tos, Approaches to the Bible: The Old Testament.
Prentice-Hall, 1963.
AC Miguel de Unamuno, The Agony of Chiistimity, trans, by Pierre
Loving. Payson and Clarke Ltd., New York, 1928.
ADB John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Originally
published in 1874. Out of print.
Anth. Alexander Goldenweiser, Anthropology. Crofts, 1946,
BG Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Book of Genesis. Shield Bible Study Series,
Baker, Grand Rapids, 1963.
BMS Henry M. Morris, The Bible and Modern Science. Moody Press,
1958.
BS Gcdet, Biblical Stdies. Out of print.
BWR Hugh J. Schonfeld, The Bible Was Right. Signet Key Book,
New American Library of World Literature, 1959.
CAT. Edw. F. Campbell, Jr., The Chronology of the Amcoma Letters,
Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1964.
CBL Kitto, Cyclopedid of Biblica2 Literatwe, Out of print.
CDD G. K. Chesterton, Chesterton Day by Day, Second Edition. Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner, et al, 1912.
CG F. E. D. Schleiermacher, Chiistliche Gkube.
CR Moses E. Lard, Comnzelztary on R o w . Christian Publishing Company,
St. Louis, 1975.
CR F. A. Filby, Creation Revealed. Revell, 1963.
DBI Kitto, Ddy Bible lllastrations. Out of print.
DEAM J, D. Thomas, The Docthe of Evolation and the Antiqaity
of Mmn, Biblical Research Press, Abilene, Texas, 1963.
DHS John Owen (1616-1683), ascoarse Colzcer?zilzg the Holy Sflkit,
Earlier issues undated, Reissued by Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1954.
DM Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Dhim Milha. Paris, 1957.
EE Jacques Maritain, Existence and the Existent, trans. by Galantiere
and Philan. Pantheon Book, 1948. Image Book, 1957.
EG H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols. Baker, 1942.
EHS F. E. Marsh, Emblems of the Holy Spirit, Pickering and Inglis,
London, 1888, 1923.
Exst. Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism, Trans. by Frechtman, New York,
1947.
PG John W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, The Fowfo2d Gospel.
Standard Publishing, Cincinnati. ...
Xlll

F1. Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flolod. Concordia, St. Louis, 1951.
FM Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Futwe of Mm. Trans. by Denny,
Harper, 1964.
GEOTP Alexander Heidel, The Gilgmesh Eeic md Old Testament
Pc4t.d22els, Second Ectson. University of Chicago Press, 1949.
GF Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Genesis Flood.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1966.
GP Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed. Trans. from the
original Arabic by Friedlander. Dover, 1956.
GPE Jacques Maritain, God and the Permission of Euil. Trans. by
Evans. Bruce, Milwaukee.
GPS T. W. Brents, The Gospel Plm of Sdvation. Gospel Advocate,
Nashville, 1928.
HBD Hurper’s Bible Dictiomry, Sixth Edition. By Madeleine S. and
J. Lane Miller. New York, 1959.
Herm. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics. Standard, Cincinnati. Out of print.
HSHS W. E. Biedetwolf, A He& to the Study of the Holy Spkit.
Revell, New York, 1904.
HU Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hymn of the Universe. Trans. by
Bartholomew. Harper, 1965.
ICR John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. by Battles.
Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 2 vols., 1960.
IHI William Jennings Bryan, In His Inwage. Revell, 1922.
ILSM Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel, Introduction to1 Logic and
the Scientific Method. Harcoirt, Brace, 1934.
IRP John Wild, Iwoduction ta a Redistic PMosophy. Harper, 1948.
ISA -Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam. Trans. from the German by
Cleugh. Houghton Mifflin, 1956.
JB The Jermsulem Bible: ’Alexander Jones, Editor. Doubleday, 1966.
KV Knowledge and Value, edited by Sprague and Taylor. Harcourt,
Brace, 1959.
LPh Lhiwg Philosophies. “A series of intimate credos.” Simon
‘Schuster, 1931.
IS J. W. N. Sullivan, The Gmitutions of Scielzce. Mentor Book, 1949.
MOT Abba Hillel Silver, Moses mu! the Origiml Torah. Macmillan,
1961.
MP Will Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy. Simon and Schuster,
1929.
NBD J. D. Douglas, The New Bible Dictionspry. Eerdmans, 1962.
NG C. H. Mackintosh (“C.H.M.”), Notes on Genesis. First Printing,
1880; Twenty-sixth Printing, 1959. Loizeaux Brothers, New York.
OBH B. S. Dean, Ozltline of Bible History. Standard, Cincinnati.
OK Glenn Negley, The Organizutiolz of Knowledge. Prentice-Hall,
1942.
xiv

CYI'H William Smith and Wilbur Fields, et al, Old Testament History,
College Press, Joplin, Missouri, 1967.
PA Charles I?, Pfeiffer, The Patrirorchul Age, Baker, 1961.
PC William Henry Roberts, The Problem of Choice, Ginn, Chicago,
1941.
PHD James R. Illingworth, Personality: Hzcmsdn and Divine, Bampton
Lectures for 1894, Macmillan, London, 1923, A small book, now out
of print, but a classic in its field.
PLS John G. Kemeny, A Philosopher Looks at Science. Van Nostrand,
1959.
PPI Gordon W. Allport, Personality ; A PSyChO~OgiCd hterpedtjon,
Holt, 1937.
RH The Restoration Herald, Cincinnati, Ohio
RMNC M. M. Davis, The Restordon Movement of the Nineteelzth
Centwy, Standard, 1914.
RSB Charles F. Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra Gpnd the Bible. Baker, 1962.
SBS Henry M. Morris, Stdies in. the Bible ut& Science. Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1966.
SHS C. Gordon Brounville, Symbols of the Holy Spirit. Out of print.
SIB The Self-Interpreting Bible (in four volumes), James W. Lee,
Editor. N. D. Thompson Publishing Company, New York and St,
Louis, 1896.
SMP Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. Scribner, 1936.
STC R. M. MacIver, Society: A Textbook of SocioJogy. Parrar and
Rinehart, 1937.
TAB Charles F. Pfeiffer, Tell El Ammw ulzd the Bible. Baker, 1963.
TBHB A. P. Weiss, A Theoretical Basis of E-lzcma.n Behauior, R. G.
Adams Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1925.
TP Robert E. Brennan, U.P., Ph.D., Thomistic %losQphy. Macmillan,
1941.
TWC Edw. Chiera, They Wrote on Chy, University of Chicago Press,
c 1956.
WSAE Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scienti-W Accept
Euol&ort. Baker, 1966.
YGOT Robert W. Gleason, S.J., Yahweh: The God of the OM Testament.
Prentice-Hall, 1964.
XV

ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC ABBREVIATIONS
(BIBLIOGRAPHICAL )
(as used only in Volume Three)
AEG E. A. Speiser, The Anch’or Bible: Genesis. Doubleday, Garden
‘City, New York, 1964.
AOTW John Gray, Archeology und the Old Testmelzt World. Harper
Torchbook, 1962.
BWDBA Charles Pfeiffer, Editor, The Biblical World: A DictionCory
of Biblical Archaeology. Baker, Grand Rapids, 1966.
CECG Robert Jamieson, Criticul und Experimental Commentury, Gewesis.
Vol. I of the complete Commentary on the Bible by Jamieson, Pausset
and Brown. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1948.
COTH G. P. Maclear, A Clussbooik of Old Testumemt Hiftory. Macmillan,
London, 1881.
CmP, or KDCOTP Keil and Delitzsch, Commentara‘eJ om the Old
Testament, Vol. I, translated from the German by James Manin.
Reissued by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
DB John D. Davis, Dictionary of the Bible, Fourth Revised Edition.
Reprinted by Baker, Grand Rapids, 1962.
ELBT Samuel Noah Kramer, section “The World of Abraham,” in
Everyday Life in Bible Times. Narional Geographic Society, Washington,
D.C., 1967. A work which literally makes alive the story of
the Patriarchal Age. Thoroughgoing, profoundly interesting, entertaining,
and ,beautifully illustrated. A book for your permanent library.
FBE
Pairbairn’s Imferiul Stddrd Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Patrick.
Art., Vol. 111, p. 66, by Duncan H. Weir, on the nzmes Hebrew,
Zsrae2&e, etc. Complete work in six volumes, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
1957.
GL
George M. Lamsa, Gospel Light: Comments from the Aramaic und
Ulzchwnged Eastem Czlstoms on the Teachings of Jeszls. A. J. Holman
Company, Philadelphia, 1939.
HEW John Owen, Hebrews-The EpistEe of Wurlzing, Reissued by
Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1355.
HH Frank Sanders, History of the Hebrews, Scribners, 1914.
HSB Harold Lindsell, Editor, Hmper S&dy Bible. Harper and Row,
New York, 1946, 1952, 1962, 1964. An excellent work.
IOT Edward J. Young, An IBtrodzlction to the Old Testmew. Revised
Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1964. An exhaustive refutation of
the critical theories of the Old Testament books.
JIEG Rabbi julian Morgenstern, A Jewish Interpretutiorz of the Book
of Geneis. Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1920.
xvi
9

NG Frederick W, Robertson, Notes on Genesis, E.P. Ducton, New
York, 1877.
NSB Orville J, Nave and Aana Seinans Nave, Nave's Stahy Bible,
81st Edition. Moody Press, Chicago, 1907.
NTCH R. Milligan, New Testument ConzmentcPry : Hebrews, Christian
Publishing Company, St. Louis, 1875.
iOHH J, 'Barton Payne, Odine of Hebrew Historyt Baker, Grand
Rapids, 1954,
OOH Will Durant, Ow Ohental Heritage, Simon and Schuster, New
York, 1942.
OTS Samuel J. Schultz, The Old Testament Speaks. Harper and Row,
1960.
PCJ The Pulpit ConznzentMy: Joshz.~, Exposition by J, J. Lias. New
Edition. Wilcox and Follett, Chicago.
RS H, Christopher, The Remedial System Transylvania Press, Lexington,
Ky., 1876; John Burns, St. Louis, 1880.
SC A Cohen, Editor, The Soncino Chivmash, The Soncino Press Ltd.,
London, Sixth Edition, 1966.
SHANE S. J. Schwantes, ShoTt History of the Ancient Near Easto
Baker, Grand Rapids, 1965.
SH C. W. Gram, The Secret of the Hittites. Knopf, New York, 1956.
SJL Rabbi Julian Morgenstern, Studies in Jewish Literdare, Kohler
Volume, George Reimer, Berlin, 1913.
WNCD Webster's New Collegiate Dickoizcwy, Merriam, Springfield,
Mass, 1949 Edition.
xvii

I .
E XP L AN AT QRY
,. I
I - _
In presenting the material in Genesis covering the
story of the Patriarchal Age we fouhia so-much more that
is of great interest, not only exegetically‘ but 1 homiletically
as well, that a further decision was made (see “Explanatory,”
Introduction, p. xvi., Vol. 11)” to, close ‘this -volume
on the Abrahamic Pilgrimage and ‘Cdveriant. we trust
that our readers will find this maGaia1 -interesting and
helpful. It is now planned that, at. soke ~ time, in the
future, a fourth (and final) volume will be issued covering
the lives of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.. There is outstanding
material for Bible students, and for ministers especially,
in these chapters which make up almost one-half of the
entire book.
C. C. Crawford
xviii
* .

CONTENTS
Part Twenty-five: The Generations of Terah -.. - 1
Part Twenty-six: ?'he Story of Abraham:
The
* .
Pilgrimage of Faith _______________-_________________ __.____r_. 41
,
' -I
Part Twenty-seven: The Story of Abraham:
Abraham and Lot ________________________________________---------
9 J
Part Twenty-eight; The Story of Abraham: Divine
Elaboration of the Promise and the Covenant ________ 152
Part Twenty-nine: The Story of Abraham:
The Son of the Bondwoman ______ _____________________________ 202
Part Thirty: The Story of Abraham:
The Old Covenant _____.__.____________ _______.
240
Part Thirty-one: The Story of Abraham:
The Patriarch as Intercessor ________________-_____________________ 297
Part Thirty-two: The Story of Abraham:
Lot's Last Days ______________ ________._.___
.. .-- 334
Part Thirty-three: The Story of Abraham:
Sojourn in the Negeb ._________________
3 84
Part Thirty-four: The Story of Abraham:
Confirmation of the Covenant ____________-_____________ 43 0
Part Thirty-five: The Story of Abraham:
..
His Provisions for Posterity ________________________________________ 4J 6
Part Thirty-six: The Patriarchal Age 49 1
xix

F N N N
-lo 0 ol
0 0 UI 0
0 0 0 0
xx
-, 9
.* E -
w

GENESIS
THE BOOK OF
THE BEGINNINGS
xxi

PART TWENTY -FIVE :
THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
(Gen. 11:27-32)
The Central Theme (Motif) of tbe Bible
The Bible is not, was never intended to be, a book of
science, or a book of philosophy (which is exclusively
human speculation), or even a history of the human race.
It is, rather, the history of a single genealogical Line, the
Line that flowered and terminated in the story of Messiah,
the Redeemer. It is, therefore, preeminently the Book of
Redemption: its content is the story of the progressive
unfolding (actualization) of the divine Plan of Redemption.
It is in fact the record of the actualization of God’s
Cosmic Plan in its fulness, in which Redemption is revealed
as the final phase of the Creation. As it is made clear in
Biblical teaching throughout, our God, the living and true
God, “declares the end from the beginning’’ (Isa. 46:9-11).
It is His Will, His Eternal Purpose (Eph. 2:8-12) that
the Cosmic Process, which began when He first spoke the
Word, “Light, be!” shall attain fulfilment in the Last
Judgment, at which time His saints, the Sheep of His
Pasture (Psa. 79:13; 100:3) shall be presented as “conformed
to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:28-20) “clothed
in glory and honor and incorruption” (Rom. 2:2-7; cf.
Acts 17:31, Matt. 25:31-46, Rev. 20:11-1J, 21:l-8, 22:l-
5). As any plan is to be evaluated by its end product,
the Divine Plan will be so evaluated in that last great Day,
the “time of the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21)
by its end-product, the glorified saint. And even if it
should turn out that only one redeemed soul, only one
ct
overcomer” (Rev. 3: 5, ,12, 21, etc.) , will be presented as
having ultimately “attained” (Phil. 2: 10-1 J), the Cosmic
Plan will be joyously acclaimed by all existing intelligences
as victorious, indeed worth all it has cost Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, not on the basis of the number redeemed, but
on the ground of the ineffable quality of the redemption
1

” .
ii :27-32 GENESIS
that shall be disclosed (Rom. 8:23, 1 Thess. J:23). We
are assured, however, by the word of our God that the
number of the glorified shall not small, but shall come
CC
out of every nation, and of all ibes and peoples and
tongues” (Rev, 7:9-10) ; and this is’the Word that stands
sure and stedfast (1 Pet. 1:2~, 2 Pet. 1:19, 2 Tim. 2:9,
Luke 21:33, etc.). These, we , “the general
assembly and church of the first who are enrolled
in heaven” (Heb. 12:23), shall e the glorious
citizenry of the City of God, New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2).
Me must never lose sight of the awesome truth that
eternity is timelessness: it has been rightly said that time
is the narrow vale between the mountain-peaks of two
eternities. It follows, therefore, although our poor minds
are unable to grasp it, that God does not, in the strict
sense of the term, foreknow: rather, He simply knows.
The whole temporal process is but His single Thought.
In God essence IS existence: the essence of our God is
to be: He dwells always in the present tense; with Him it
is always NOW (2 Cor. 6:2, Luke 14:17; Isa. 49:8, JJ:6;
2 Pet. 3:8) ; hence, the great and incommunicable Name
of our God is I AM, HE WHO IS (Exo. 3 : 13 -14). He is
the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega (Rev.
1:8, 17; 21:6, 22:13; cf. Isa. 41:4), the Beginning and
the End, only in the sense tht He is without beginning
or end. This is not only the testimony of Scripture; it
is that of reason as well. There must be back of all being,
the very Creator and Preserver of it all, a Power that is
without beginning or end; else our only alternative is the
belief that sometime, somewhere, nothing created this vast
something which we call the world, the cosmos, with its
multifarious living creatures. Such a notion, however, is
inconceivable: even the ancients were wise enough to know
that ex nihilo, nihil fit. (Incidentally, the most ardent
evolutionist, whether he admits it or not, cannot escape
the fact that his theory is, after all, a theory of creation.)
2

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
As Arthur Holly Compton, the eminent physicist and
Nobel prize winner, once put it: “A God who can control
a universe like this is mighty beyond imagination.”
All this boils down to the fact which we emphasize
here, that God’s Cosmic Plan which had its beginning in
the Paradise Lost of Genesis will have its fulfilment-by
His own Eternal Purpose and Design-in the Paradise Re-
gained so wondrously portrayed for us in the book of
Revelation. The essence of this Plan is the redemption
of the Faithful-the Overcomers (cf. Rev. 2:7, 17, etc.;
1 Cor. 1J:J8, Matt. 25:21, 23; 2 Tim. 2:2, 4:7)-in
spirit and soul and body (1 Thess. ~:23). We find the
first intimations of it in the opening chapters of Genesis.
Thus we emphasize the fact again that the Bible as a
whole, primarily-it would not be amiss to say, it is
exclusively-the Story of Redemption; and, as we shall
now see, the motif of this entire story is set for us in
the mysterious oracle of Genesis 3 : 1 5 ,
The Seed of the Wmnaiz
Gen. 3:lJ. The matter of supreme importance here
is that of understanding what is implied in the phrase,
the Woman’s Seed. Here we are told that, in the spiritual
conflict of the ages, the Old Serpent’s seed shall bruise
the heel of the Woman’s Seed, signifying a mean, insidious,
vicious, generally unsuccessful warfare (the heel is not a
particularly important part of the anatomy), a kind of
“guerilla warfare,” let us say, whereas the Woman’s Seed
shall ultimately crush the Serpent-seed’s bead (the ruling
part of the person and personality), signifying, as we know
in the light of the New Testament fulfilment, the com-
plete victory of Messiah (Christ) over all evil (Rom. 16:20,
1 Cor. 1j:25-26, Phil. 2:9-11, Matt, 25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-
11, 2 Thess. 1:7-10, 2 Pet. 3:l-13, Jude 6, Rev. 20:7-10,
etc.). (See my Genesis, 11, 150-156).
The story of this age-old conflict is presented in
Scripture in a series of progressive limitations of the mean-
3

11 :27-32 GENESIS
ing of the phrase, the Seed of the Woman, first from her
generic seed, the whole human race as descended from Eve,
“the mother of all living” (Gen.’ 3:2O), to her divinely
selected ethnic seed, the fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob (the Children of Israel) to become the Old Cove-
nant people of God. Little by little, however, as we read
on through the testimony of the-’Hebrew prophets, the
divinely intended limitation becomes’ ‘clearer and clearer,
until we finally realize that the Sedd specifically designed
to thwart, and ultimately to com$letely rout, Satan and
his rebel host, is not a race nor a people, but a Person, the
Person, Jesus, Messiah, Christ, God’s Only Begotten (John
3:16). (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:20-28, Phil. 2:7-10, Heb. 2:14-15).
Moreover, because the Bible gives us the History of Re-
demption, it also identifies the genealogical Line through
which this Plan of Redemption is effectuated, that is, the
Line that culminates in Jesus the Messiah, commonly desig-
nated the Messianic Line. (Cf. Matt. 16:16, John 19:30,
Heb. 1 : 1-4). It should be recalled here that God literally
separated the Hebrew people, the Children of Israel, from
the rest of mankind and put them into the pulpit of the
world to do five things: (1) to preserve the knowledge of
the living and true God, (2) to preserve the knowledge
of the moral law, Gal. 3:19, (3) to prepare the world for
the advent and ministry of the Messiah, and (4) to build
up a system of metaphor, type, allegory, and prophecy to
identify Messiah at His appearance in the flesh, and (5)
actually to give the Messiah-Prophet, Priest and King-
to the world.
Again, the progression of the spiritual conflict-the
Great Controversy-which has been waged throughout
time between the forces of evil, led by the Old Serpent,
the Devil, and the forces of righteousness (redemption)
under the leadership of the Seed of the Woman, the Son of
God, has, generally speaking, paralleled the successive
delimitations of the meaning of the phrase under considera-
4

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
tion here. The oracle of Gen, 3:15 surely pointed forward
to the successive phases of this Controversy, that is, the
conflict (1) between the Devil and the whole human race
(John 14:30, 2 Cor. 4:4); (2) between the Devil and
God’s Old Covenant people, the fleshly seed of Abraham
(Job, chs. 1, 2; I Chron. 2l:l; Zech, 3:1-5); (3) between
the Devil and the Messiah Himself (Matt, 4:1-11, Luke
22:39-46, John 8:44, Heb. 2:14-16); (4) and finally,
between the Devil and the New Covenant elect, the
spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal, 3:16-19, 3:27-29; Eph.
3:8-11, 6:lO-18; Jas. 4:7, 1 Pet. 5:8-9).
In the book of Genesis the Story of Redemption is
carried forward in the following prophetic references to
Messiah, as follows: (1) He would be the Seed of the
Woman (Gen, 3:14-15, Matt. 1:18-23, Luke 1:26-28,
Gal. 4:4-5) ; (2) He would ultimately triumph over the
Old Serpent, the Devil (Gen. 3 : 14-1 5, Heb. 2 : 14-1 5 ; Rev.
12:10-12, 20:7-10); (3) He would be of the Seed of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, respectively (Gen. 12: 3, 18 : 18,
22:18, 26:24; Acts 3:25-26; Gal. 3:16; Heb. 11:17-18);
(4) He would be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:lO; Psa.
2:6-9, 60:7; Heb. 7:14, Rev. 5:J). The very heart of the
Abrahamic Promise was the promise of the Reign of
Messiah, the Redeemer.
rrGeneratioiis”
We have noted previously (Vol. I, pp. 46-47) that the
book of Genesis divides readily into ten sections, each
introduced by the word toledotb, translated “generations.”
(It must be recalled that this introductory term “genera-
tions,” refers always to that which follows and never to
that which precedes, in time.) These are as follows: (1)
the generations of the heavens and of the earth (chs. 2:4-
4:26); (2) the generations of Adam (chs. 5:1-6-8);
(3) the generations of Noah (chs. 6:9-9:29); (4) the
generations of the sons of Noah (chs. 10:1-11:9) ; ( 5 )
5

1-1‘: 2 7 - 3 2
the generations of Shem ; (6) the genera-
tions of Terah (chs. 11:27-25:118f; (7) the generations
of Ishmael (ch. 25:12-18) ; (8) tker/gerierations of Isaac
(chs. 25:19-35:29); (9) the gdnerations of Esau (ch.
36) ; (10) the generations of Jacob ,(chs. 37:2-50:26).
It will be noted that according t
is carried forward to the account
of Abraham. The reason for thi$.:ii, no doubt, the fact
that Abraham is the chief charactcr throughout: all that
is told us about Terah, Nahor, Hhran, Lot (the son of
Haran), and Rebekah (the granddaughter of Nahor), is
recorded only as the events in which these persons were
involved are of significance in relation to the life of
Abraham. It should be noted that the genealogical pro-
gression here follows the pattern set for the Generations
of Noah (6:10), namely, that as the latter began with
the naming of his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, so the
Generations of Terah are introduuced by the names of his
three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran. There is a kind
of symmetry about these genealogical tables that is most
interesting. Furthermore, the Call of Abraham (12: 1) is
related to the prophetic promise regarding Shem (9:26) ;
indeed it is the beginning of the fulfilment of that promise.
The Progeny of Eber
This name becomes rather important in relation to
the Semitic genealogical table. Eber is presented therein
as the great-grandson of Shem, who at the age of thirty-
four became the father of Peleg (Gen. 11:16, cf. 1 Chron.
1 : 18), and later of other sons and daughters, one of whom
was Joktan (10:21, 25). His total life span was 464
years (1 1: 16). It seems that Eber was the progenitor of
a large segment of the Arabs of Arabia through Joktan
(present-day Arabian tribes insist that pure Arabs de-
scended from Joktan, and many are still known as “chil-
dren of Joktan”), and of the Hebrews through Peleg (as
the Table expressly asserts).
6

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-52
There can be little doubt, however, that some correla-
tion exists between the name Eber and the word Hebrew,
Eber means “one who passes over.” It is interesting to
note that the name Habiru or HaPiru (“those who cross
over”) is used, apparently, throughout the archeological
archives of the anciegt Near East to designate Semitic
nomads. (Note that the name Arab apparently is a dia-
lectical variant for Eber, and hence may have come to dis-
tinguish the wandering tribes who descended through
Joktan from those who descended through Peleg and who
lived semi-sedentary lives on irrigated lands) , These
Habiru or Hapiru appeared in various parts of the Fertile
Crescent in the second rnillenium B.C. They appeared at
Larsa, Babylon, Mari, Alalakh, Nuzi, Boghazkoy, Ugarit,
and even at Amarna in Egypt. In these records they are
almost uniformly described as restless nomadic people. At
Mari they operated as bands of semi-nomads. In the
Arnarna letters they are portrayed as lawless gangs who
were joined by oppressed urban peoples in attacks on the
established cities. Some hold that the name Habiru may
have designated a social caste rather than an ethnic group.
Be this as it may, the consensus is, overwhelmingly,
that from the eponym Eber came the name Hebrew as
used in the Bible as a patronymic for Abraham and his
seed. In this connection an excellent discussion of the
name Hebrew and its relation to the name Israelite may be
found in Fairbairn’s Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 111, p. 66.
The article is by Duncan H. Weir. It goes substantially
as follows: Herbrew, according to this writer, was a name
of wider import at least in its earlier use, Every Israelite
was a Hebrew, but every Hebrew was not an Israelite.
In Genesis 15:13 Abraham the Hebrew is mentioned along
with Mamre the Amorite. In Gen. 39:14, 40:15, and
41:12 Joseph is spoken of as a Hebrew and the land of
Palestine as the land of the Hebrews. In Gen. 10:21,
Shem is called “the father of all the children of Eber” or
7

1;1:27-32 GENESIS :$#: -;
Hebrews. In Num. 24:24, it is not probable that by Eber,
who is, mentioned along with AssGur, the children of
Israel$ and they only, are meant. Aftp-. the conquest of
Palestine by the Israelites the name Hqbrew was no longer
used with its original latitude. Whep.it is used in preference
to Israelite, there is always a rqfqrqnce tq the foreign
relations of Israel. It is used (I) by forejgners, (Exo. 1:16,
2:7; 1 Sam. 4:6-9, 14:11, etc.); c2)
addressing foreigners (Exo. 2 : 7, 3 : 1 8
when Israelites are opposed to foreignmatiom, (Gen. 40: 15,
43:32; Exo. 2:11, 21:2; Deut. lS:l?I; Jer.,34:9, 14). (1
Sam. 13:3 seems to be an exception,),, “Hebrew was the
international designation, Isradite the local and domestic
name, the family name, if we may ;so speak, surrounded
with all the sacredness of home associ3tions, and thus having
attached to it a spiritual import which never was and never
could be associated with the name Hebrew. Greek and
Roman writers seem to have known nothing of the name
Israelite. Hebrew and Jew are the names they employed.”
The name Hebrew is comparatively rare, even in the Old
Testament, being found there only 32 times. The word
never occurs in what we call Hebrew poetry. No Hebrew
prophet ever prophecies of the Hebrews. (Found only in
the story of Jonah 1:9 and in Jer. 34:9, 14, where the
Pentateuch is quoted. Hebrew is not met with after the
accession of David. “The reason is obvious: Hebrew is
the name which linked the descendants of Jacob with the
nations; Israel the name which separated them from the
nations.’’ In latter times, about the beginning of the
Christian era, the use of the name Hebrew as an ancient
and venerable name was revived (Acts 6:2, 2 Cor. 11:22,
Phil: 3 :s) . There is disparity of this opinion-this author
goes onto say-regarding the origin of the name Hebrew,
whetber *as. patronymic from Eber or Heber, or as an
appellation from the term Hebrew as designating an immigrant
%om beyond,” that is, from beyond the river Eu-
8

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11 :27-92
phrates. The two opinions are not necessarily incompatible.
Indeed the name may have been prophetic, thus
including a pre-intimation of the migratory tendencies and
life of his (Eber’s) posterity.
Perhaps it should be noted here that the name ‘Jew
came to be used to designate an inhabitant of the kingdom
and land of Judah. It seems to have originated during
and after the Captivity. It was commonly used by non-
Jews to refer to the Hebrews, or descendants of Abraham
in general. In Jeremiah 34:9, “Jew” is used to explain
“Hebrew.” (See Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Daniel), It is also used to describe the local Semitic dialect
spoken in Judah (“Jews’ language,” 2 Ki. 18:26, 28; Isa.
36:11, 13; Neh. 13:24), Similarly, in the A.V., “Jewry”
stands for Judah (Dan. 5:13, Luke 23:5, John 7:l). By
New Testament times the plural form ccJewsyy had become
a familiar term for all Israelites. Note the feminine
“Jewess” in 1 Chron. 4:18; Acts 16:1, 24:24; also the
adjective “Jewish” in Gal. 2:14 (Gr.), Tit. 1:14.
The Patriarchal Dispeizsation
The name “patriarch” (from the Greek pafriarches,
“father rule”) occurs only in the New Testament, and is
given only to the heads or princes of the family group,
with reference particularly to those who lived before the
time of Moses. The family included, as a rule, some three
or four generations, and with increase in number gradually
developed into the tribe. (The Apostle’s reference to
“the patriarch David” (Acts 2:29) seems to be a recognition
of David’s primacy as the head of the monarchy. The
Davidic reign was always held by the people of Israel to
be the most glorious period of their history. The city of
Jerusalem is repeatedly designated “the city of David” in
the Old Testament historical books: cf. 2 Sam. 6:10, I Ki,
2:10, 1 Chron. 11:7, 2 Chron. 9:31, etc., cf. Luke 2:4, 11.
Note also Psa. 48:2 and the Messianic prophecy, Isa. 9:6-7;
also the words of Jesus, Matt. 5: 3 5, “nor by Jerusalem, for
9

11 :?7-32 GENESIS
it is the city of the great King.”) (vote that “Abraham,
the patriarch” is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek,
Heb. 7:4; also that “the twelve patriarchs” of Stephen’s
apologia, were the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Jacob
or Israel, Acts 7:8-9.)
The New Testament word “dispensation” (Gr. oikonomia,
“household management,” whence our English term,
cceconomyyy) may also be rendered ‘stewardship.” (Eph.
l:lO, 3:2; Col. 1:25). In these Scriptures it is God Himself
who is regarded as Steward. Steward of what? Of
the gracious favors which he bestows upon His people, the
sheep of His pasture. (In 1 Cor. 9:17, the Apostle Paul,
in defending his apostleship, declares Himself to have been
entrusted with this Divine stewardship, the stewardship of
the Gospel: cf. 1 Cor. 2:2, Gal. 1:6-17). The modus
operandi (system) of this Divine stewardship has been
actualized and revealed in three successive Dispensations.
Hence, in harmony with the essential elements of Biblical
religion (altar, sacrifice, and priesthood) it will be noted
that Dispensations changed as the successive priesthoods
were changed. The Patriarchal Dispensation, extending,
from Adam to Moses, was the period in which the father
acted as priest (mediator) for his entire household (his
living progeny) . Throughout this Dispensation, God revealed
His laws, established His institutions, and dispensed
the benefits and blessings of His grace, through the fathers
or heads of families, who were known as patrarchs. When
the respective families had grown into tribes, this Dispensation
gave way to the Mosaic or Jewish Dispensation. This
occurred with the giving of the Law at Sinai through the
mediatorship of Moses. Here the Abrahamic Covenant was
enlarged into the Sinaitic Covenant, the Patriarchal priesthood
was abrogated and the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood
was instituted. This, which was essentially a national
covenant with a national priesthood, continued in force to
the death of Christ at Calvary. By the shedding of His
10

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 1 1 :27-32
blood, He abrogated the Old Covenant and its Dispensa-
tions, and at the same time ratified the New Covenant and
instituted the Christian . Dispensation, At this time the
old Levitical national priestliood gave way to the universal
priesthood of the saints.’ Under this New Covenant all
Christians are priests ulito God and Christ Himself is their
sole Mediator and High Priest, (Cf. Exo. chs. 28, 29, 30;
Lev, chs. 8, 9; Heb, chs. 7, 8, 9, 10; Rom. l2:1, Heb.
13:15, 1 Tim, 2:5; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1;6, 5:10, 20:6,
22 : 17, etc,) The Patriarchal Dispensation was essentially
the age of the Father, the Jewish Dispensation the age of
the Son, and the present Christian Dispensation is the age
of the Spirit who came on Pentecost to incorporate the
Body of Christ and to dwell therein unto the time of the
Glorious Consummation (John 7:39, 14:16-17, 15:26-27,
16:7-12, Acts 1:9-11, 1 Thess, 4:13-18, 2 Thess. 1:7-10,
Phil. 2:5-11, 1 Cor, 15:20-28, etc.)
The Generations of Terah (Gen. 11:27-32)
Let us keep in mind the fact that this introductory
term, toledoth, “generations,” refers always to that which
follows, and never to that which precedes, in time.
“27 Now these are the generations of Terah.
Terah
begat Abram, Nabor, and ‘ Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28 And Harail died before his father Terah in the land
of his nativity, iiz UT of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram
and Nahor took thein wives: the ii,ame of Abram’s wife
was Sarai; md the name ,of Nabor’s wife, Milcab, the
daughter of Haran, the father of Milcab, and, the father
of Iscgh, 30 and Sarai was barren; she had iao child. 31 And
Terah took. Abraw his soiz,. aid Lot the son of Harafa, his
son’s son, aiid Sarae his daugh[er-in.-law, his son Abram’s
wife; and they went f.ortb with tkenz from Ur of the
Cbaldees, to go into the laizd oj Canaan; and they came
ulzto Haran, and dwelt there. 32 Aizd the days of Terab
11

11 :27-32 GENESIS
were two bawdred and five years: and Terah died in
Maran.”
The Migration From Ur to Haran
(1) Having traced the descendants of Eber down to
Nahor, now the Messianic genealogy is narrowed down
specifically from the generic to the ethic (“chosen”)
seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), namely the posterity of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exo. 3:6, 15:16; Matt. 22:32,
Mark 12:26, Luke 20:37; Acts 3:13, 7.32). (Note Terah’s
name in the Lineage as given by Luke (3:34). Note also
that Matthew introduces the Line with Abraham, obviously
because Matthew’s primary objective was to present Jesus
as Messiah identified by Old Testament prophecy, hence
his oft-recurring clause, “that it might be fulfilled,” as
first used in Matt. 1 :22-23). (2) It should be noted, too,
that the Line is given in more detail at this point with
the view to introducing the two parents, Abram and Sarai
whose names are changed later to Abraham and Sarah
(17: FY 1 S-from 3 Abram, “exalted father,” to Abraham,
“father of a multitude”; from Sarai, ‘hy princess,” to
Sarah, “princess” : according to Gesenius, whereas f ormerly
she was Abram’s princess only, she was now to become
princess in a more‘exalted sense, princess of a people: the
name indicates she was a woman of some social standing).
EG, Vol. I, 399: cc-cSarai,’ according to its root, cannot be
the same as Sbarra and so related to Skarratu, the goddess
of Charran, the wife’of the moon-god Sin. Such efforts
to make historical personages identical with mythological
figures degrade ’ Biblical’ history.” (3) This section also
introduces” ,Nahor ‘ (cf. 1 Chron. 1 :2 6) Rebekah’s grand-
24) and Lot,. the ancestor of the Moabites and
the’ ’Amrnonkes (19:.30131) (4) Note also Abraham’s
explanation”(Gen:: 201 I Z ~ that Sarah was his half-sister
(his father’s’^ daughter, ‘ but not the daughter of his
. “
motAer). Despite some fantastic conjectures as to the
12

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 1 1 : 27-3 2
meaning of this statement, the most likely explanation is
that of the text itself, meaning that she was Terah’s
daughter by another wife than Abraham’s mother. It
should be noted that Milcah, the wife of Nahor and mother
of Bethuel, was Nahor’s iiiece (Gen. 11:29, 22:20-23;
24:15, 24, 47). Again, if Sarai was daughter of the
father of whom Abram was son, she could not have been
identified with Iscah for the simple reason that Iscah’s
father, we are told expressly, was Haran. Marriage with
a half-sister or niece was forbidden later by the Mosaic
Code (Lev. 18:6-18). Leupold (EG, I, 399): “We dare
not judge relations such as these-which would now be
properly termed incestuous-according to the standards of
the present time. As long as it pleased God to let the
human race descend from one pair, it must be conceded
that for a time marriage between brothers and sisters was
a necessity. It may well have taken quite a time before
a sense of the impropriety of such a relation arose” (cf.
Acts 17:30). (Father-daughter, mother-son, brothersister
sexual relationships are radically different from the
type of affection on which the conjugal union is based, and
hence can hardly become the bases op which domestic
society is constructed. The overwhelming testimuny of.
anthropology is that incest was frowned upon yery earl<
in‘ the history of man, or even prohibited outright, by
human societies generally, whether primitive, prehistoric,
or historic.) It should be izoted heye ~ tbat Iscah. pever
appears again, iiz the Biblical story. I
, .
, e
( 5 ) It is most significant that to Sgrah’s. barrenness,
which was to figure prominently in the story; sf the chosen
seed, attention is drawn emphatically at this poiqt, by the
parallel statement, “she had no children.” This is the first
intimation of the birth of the Child of Promise, which,
like the conception and birth of Jesus -from the virgin
womb of Mary, was surely an event outside the course df
P ,
what we call the
. . h
operations of “nature.”
13

11 :27-32 GENESIS
(6) “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram,
Nahor, and Haran.” The order of the sons’ names as
given here parallels that of the sons of Noah (Gen. 6:lO).
It is prophetic in the sense that it is not the order in time,
but in the relative eminence to be accorded them in the
history of redemption. From this latter point of view,
the name of Abram necessarily .came first because it was
at this point that all facets of the Biblical motif converged
upon him. That Haran was the eldest of the three sons
seems evident from the fact that Nahor married his
daughter. That Abram was the. youngest seems equally
obvious from the rather clear indication that he was born
sixty years after the date given for the actualization of
Terah’s paternity (70 years), and that he was seventy-five
years old when his father died in Haran at the age of 205.
(Cf. 11 :26, 11 : 32, 12:4). The problem invloved here is
that of determining whether Abram was born when Terah
was 70 years old or when he was 130 years old.
(7) The first stage of the migration-the pilgrimage
to the Promised Land-is described in the section quoted
above (11:27-32). This was the journey from Ur in
Lower Mesopotamia, near the head of the Persian Gulf,
northward about 600 miles through the Fertile Crescent
to Haran (also known as Ch‘arran) in Northwest Mesopo-
tamia, in theaheat of what was at a later time the king-
dom of the Mitanni (of the Hurrians or Biblical Horites,
Gen. 14:6, 36:30). Haran was the chief city of the region
which came to be known as Padan-Aram, “the field of
Aram” (Gen. 25 :20), Aram was the old name of Syria
and, Mesopotamia; sometimes, however, the name was used
for Syria alone ’(cf. Gen. 25:20, 28:Ii, 31:20, 24; Deut.
26:’Ii: in all” these passages the word “Syrian” as used in
KJV and ASV is “Aramean” in the Hebrew, and is so
rendered in the ‘RSV). Cornfeld (AtD, 49) : “The gen-
eral location of Haran has never been lost and a town by
this name still exists on the Balikh, a tributary of the
14

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11 :27-32
Euphrates. , , , Hebrew tradition considered Abram’s
kinsmen in Mesopotamia as nomadic Arameans. This is
how they are called in the subsequent stories of Genesis
and in Deut. 26: 5.”
(8) The chronological problem here is rather involved.
Thus writes Speiser (ABG, 79) : “The Samaritan version
gives Terah a total of only 145 years (cf. Acts 7:4). On
this reckoning the year of Terah’s death would be the
same as that of Abraham’s departure from Haran (cf.
Gen. 12:4) .” Whitelaw presents the case with consider-
able clarity as follows (PCG, 175-176) : “‘And they cawe
imto Haraii , . . mid dwelt there.’ Probably in consequence
of the growing infirmity of Terah, the period of their
sojourn being differently computed according as Abram
is regarded as having been born in Terah’s 70th or 130th
year. . . , ‘And the days of Tcrab were two hundred avd
five years.’ So that if Abram was born in Terah’s 70th
year, Terah must have been 145 when Abram left Haran,
and must have survived that departure sixty years (Kalisch,
Dykes) ; whereas if Abram was born in his father’s 130th
year, then Terah must have died before his son’s departure
from Haran, which agrees with Acts 7:4”), Cf. Jamieson
(CECG, 127) : “It appears that Terah did not acquire the
paternal character till the reached the age of seventy, and
that although in the enumeration of his sons, Abram, like
Shem (ch. 5:32, 6:10, 7:13), is, from his great eminence,
mefitioned first, he was not the eldest of the family. That
honor belonged not to him, but to Haran (v. 29); and
Abram, who seems to have been the youngest son, was not
born till sixty years after: for by comparing v. 32 with
ch. 12:4, and subtracting 75 from 205, Terah must have
been one hundred and thirty years old at Abram’s birth.
This is the explanation given by Chrysostow amongst the
Fathers, Calviii and Musculus amongst the Reformers,
Usher, Clinton, and others in later times, of a very per-
plexing difficulty; and it seems to be in accordance with
1J

11. :27-32 GENESIS
the Scripture (see on v. 32), although it makes Abram’s
exclamation of surprise (ch. 17: 17) at the announcement
of his own paternity at a less advanced age than Terah’s
not a little remarkable.” Again, on v. 32, Jamieson says:
“This has long been regarded as a difficulty, for the solu-
tion of which various explanations have been offered, but
all of them are unsatisfactory; and certainly it would be
an insuperable difficulty if Abram were the eldest son,
born in his father’s seventieth year; for adding 70 to 75,
Abram’s age on his departure ‘out of Haran,’ would make
Terah’s age only one hundred and forty-five years, the
number assigned for it in the Samaritan Pentateuch. But
according to the exposition given above of v. 26, together
with the asserted brevity of the sojourn at Haran, which,
though an hypothesis, meets all the conditions of the narra-
tive, all difficulties are removed: for 130 plus 75 equals
205 years, Terah’s age when he died.” J. W. Charley
(NBD, 12j3) : “Terah emigrated from Ur of the Chaldees
and settled in Harran, where he died long after Abram’s
departure (Acts 7:4 is an oral slip).” (To the present
author, this appears to be a very dogmatic statement and
one without any supporting evidence: as a matter of fact,
Stephen’s testimony in Acts 7:4 is not to be dismissed so
lightly, €or the simple reason that the teaching of the Bible
as a whole, on any controverted question, is to be preferred
-on the ground of its greater reliability-above the
exegesis of any particular section per se.)
matter of fact, Why sbozcld not the names of Shem and
Abram appegr first in these eiaumerditions? Did they not
plgy $re-eminent roles in the actzcalization of the Messianic
Development, and hence of the Plan of Redemption? And
is not this Development ,$he over-all theme of the Bible
from the Gegiiming to the end? Note this comment from
JB, p. 27, ,on v., 32, as to Terah’s age at death: “Only
145 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch; this would
mean that Abraham left Haran only when his father died
16

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
(cf, 11:26, 12:4, and Acts 7:4) .” Note this final summa-
tion to I-Ialey (ADB, 392-393) : “In the twenty-sixth verse
Abraham may be mentioned first, simply on account of his
theocrafic importance; as Moses is usually named before
Aaron, who was the elder. So that Abraham may have
been the yoicngest son, born when Terah was 130 years
old. It would then follow that Abraham left Haran at
the age of 75, his father having previously died at the age
of 205 years. This removes the difficulty. Some Jewish
interpreters, however, thinli that Abraham actually left
Haran sixty years before his father’s death. On this theory,
Stephen, in asserting that Abraham left after his father’s
death, simply followed the then commonly received, though
inaccurate, chronology. So Ewald, Keil, Kurtz, Lange,
Murphy, and others.” The Graf -Wellhausen (Composite,
Documentary) Theory of the Pentateuch would have us
try to find the solution of these troublesome problems of
time and place in the history of ancient Israel by attribut-
ing the verses and parts of verses involved to alleged dif-
ferent sources (Codes), intervening redactors, etc. Un-
fortunately, the result is what might properly be designated
analytical chaos, a rather common phenomenon of the
Teutonic mentality. The simple fact is that the “critics”
are unable to reach any notable measure of agreement
among themselves as to the identity and proper allocation
of these alleged sources. This entire complex theory de-
pends on iiiferizal evidence alone; it lacks any convincing
measure of support by exlfermd evidence of any kind, and
in the final analysis must be labeled a crazy quilt of aca-
demic conjecture.
(9) Eminent Jewish authorities inform us that tribal
movements southward into Babylonia have always occurred
annually and continue to do so in our own time, It is
quite probable that Abraham’s patriarchal ancestors fol-
lowed the nomadic life and were themselves accustomed to
making these migrations. Icraeling, for example, writes
17

11 :27-32 GENESIS
(BA, 5 5-56) : “Where the migration account begins in
11:31 f., we find Terah in the territory of Ur of the
ees or Chaldeans. Since all the fam names point to
otamia we may imagine Terah and sons as nomads
who had previously traveled to Chaldea from their northern
home before the story of their further migrations opens.
Such a southward movement of’ tribesmen from Mesopo-
tamia to Babylonia takes place annually to this day. Meso-
potamian winters are hard, and so the’ Bedouin go down to
pasture their flocks in the Bahylonian area during that
season . . . In times when there was no strong government
these nomads were wont to rob the farming population en
route or levy on it at will.” Again: “The Terah clan was
certainly only a sojourner in the Ur vicinity, lingering
there by treaty or agreement with the local authorities.
Their sheep or goats would not have been permitted to
invade these well-irrigated, fertile lands on which the life
of Ur depended. From afar these shepherds, however,
could see the mighty ziggurat or tower of the city-today
the best-preserved ziggurat of Babylonia-Like a great land-
mark (cf. Gen. 11 : 3 ), and it may have made them feel at
home that the god Nannar or Sin, the moon-god who was
so prominently worshiped at Haran, was revered there
also.”
(10) What prompted Terah to make the movement
northward? (a) Was it just the customary return to the
north characteristic of the nomads? If so, it was only a
return to familiar territory. Religiously both Ur and
Haran had much in common, especially in the fact that
both were centers of the worship of the moon-god Sin.
It is significant, it would seem, that the descendants of
Nahor, Abraham’s brother, elected to settle permanently in
Haran; that to this region Abraham later sent his servant
Eliezer to seek a bride for his son Isaac; that here Jacob
married Leah and Rachel, the daughters of Laban “the
Aramean,” and that from this region he fled to escape the
18

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
wrath of his brother Esau. (b) Or, was it the death of
Haran in the territory of Ur that provided the impetus
for this migration? (c) Or, was the first move made
with the ultimate goal in mind of the journey all the way
to the Land of Promise? This suggestion would necessarily
imply that Terah was cognizant of the Call of Abram,
and that this was the first step in the projected Abrahamic
pilgrimage. Some authorities hold that Terah sought to
make the long trek to the Promised Land in the anticipa-
tion of sharing the inheritance which had been promised
to Abram and his seed: a point not beyond the range of
probability. At any rate, the journey was interrupted for
a time by the “stop-over” at Haran. As noted above,
some authorities think that Terah died in Ilaran long after
Abram’s departure.
(1 1) The influence of paganism seems already to have
corrupted Abram’s ancestry. It is explicitly stated, on
Divine authority, in Joshua’s farewell address, that the
“fathers”-and Terah is mentioned specifically--“served
other gods” (Josh. 24:2). This fact is corroborated by
the evidence that Laban was wont to make some ritual or
magical use of teraphim (Gen. 31:19, 30-32). This passage
indicates that these were small objects (figurines), but
First Sam. 19:13-16 suggests a life-size figure or bust (per-
haps, however, Michal in this instance placed the teraphim
beside rather than in the bed). (Corruption with pagan-
ism is also indicated by the pairing of the ephod and the
teraphim in the idolatrous cult of Micah (Judg. 18: 14-20) .
At any rate, when these objects are mentioned they are
always condemned (cf. Judg., chs. 17, 18; 1 Sam. 15:23,
19:13-16; 2 Ri. 23:24 [in this passage they are categorized
as “abominations”] ; Hos. 3 :4), They are frequently di-
rectly associated with divination (by chance drawing from
a quiver of arrows, belonzanteia, or by hepatoscopy: see
Ezek. 21 :21, Zech. lo:& 2 Ki. 23 :24), Considering the
environment in which they had been sojourning, one might
19

11 ~27-32 GENESIS
well say, for centuries, no great difficulty is encountered
in accepting as true the fact that Abram’s ancestral family
had drifted into the corruption of their original faith
(monotheism) with pagan superstitions. History testifies
to the fact that this deterioration of original idealism has
repeated itself again and again on contact with degrading
social pressures. It is a prime characteristic of our common
human depravity. The wonder of it all is that out of the
depth of this environmental background there emerged
one who was destined to prove himself to be the Friend
of God (2 Chron. 20:7, Isa. 41:8, Jas. 2:23) and the Father
of the Faithful (Gal. 3:9, 27-29; Rom. 5:16). (It should
be noted here that sorcery-defined as the attempt to in-
fluence events and people by occult means-was punishable
by stoning to death under the Old Covenant (Exo. 22:18;
Lev. 20:6, 20:27; Deut. 18:lO; cf. Exo. 7:11, 1 Sam.
28:3-19, Jer. 27:9-10: under the New Covenant it is a sin
that will damn the soul [l Cor. 10:19-23, Gal. 5:2O, Rev.
21:8, 22:15; cf. Luke 16:27-31; Acts 13:s-12, 16:16-181.
In fact, throughout the Bible, all forms of occultism are
regarded as of diabolical origin.) This drift into pagan
idolatry by Abram’s ancestry becomes all the more under-
when we take into consideration the fact, abun-
oved by archeological discoveries, that both Haran
and Ur were the prominent centers of the worship of the
moon-god Sin. Simpson (IBG, 568) :
Haran, Sharratu was the title of the moon-goddess, the
consort of Sin,’Malkatu a title of Ishtar, also worshiped
there.” Under YJr,” Wiseman writes (NBD, 1305) : “The
history and’economy of the city is well known from thou-
sands of inscribed tablets and the many buildings found at
the site. The principal deity was Nannar (Semitic Sin or
Su’en) , who was also worshiped at Harran.” Smith-Fields
(OTH, 64) on Ur: “While its culture was amazing, its
religion had degenerated into the deepest idolatry and
supersition. It was necessary that the chosen family should
20

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
separate themselves from this contaminating environment
until God’s provisions for the salvation of the whole world
were ready to be proclaimed.” To what extent Abram
himself was affected by this pagan environment, and by
the tendency of his forebears to yield to it, partially at
least, we do not know. We feel justified, however, from
the story of the life of Abraham as a whole, in believing
that to this great man of faith it must have been irksome
probably to the point of utter disgust.
(12) The Cult of Fertility. The tewphiiiz mentioned
above are said to have been small objects (figurines),
probably images of gods or goddesses undoubtedly suggestive
of the Cult of Fertility which dominated the “religious”
theory and ritual of the ancient pagan world.
This Cult was characterized by ritual prostitution, phallic
worship, and all kinds of sex perversion. Nearly all of the
non-Hebrew peoples made a fetish of any object that
might represent the reproductive powers of living things.
Permeating this Cult was the motif-on the basis of sympathetic
(homeopathic) magic-that human coition of male
and female enhanced the fertility of the soil. (Th‘ is explains
why many of these practices are categorized as “vegetative”
or c‘agricultural’’ rites and festivals). Hence the
veneration given to bulls and snakes (species reputedly
noted for their powers of procreation) in many areas,
particularly in Crete. In recent times archaeologists have
dug up in Mediterranean lands, and in Crete in particular,
which seems to have been one of the chief centers of diffusion
of this Fertility Cult, hundreds of so-called “Venus
figurines,” figurines or idols of pregnant women. The
most prominent feature of this Cult was the worship of the
Earth-Mother, along with that of the Sun-Father: this
practice seems to have been nearly universal, except of
course among the Hebrews who were constantly exposed
to it and finally in some measure succombed to it. In
Babylonia, Tewa Mater was known as Ishtar; in Egypt,
21

11 :27-32 GENESIS
her name was Isis; in Syria, Atargatis; in Phrygia, Cybele;
g the Germanic tribes, Oestra; in Phoenicia, Astarte;
naan, Ashtoreth, etc. The Sun-Father in Egypt was
at first the great god Re (at Heliopolis) , and later Aton of
the reformatory effort of the Pharaoh Ikhnaton; in the
Sanskrit, he was known as Dyaus Pitar, that is, “father of
light”; in Greece he became Zeus pater, and in Rome,
Iuppiter. In every instance ritual prostitution in the name
of “religion” was a prominent phase of the worship of these
ccgoddesses”: in their temples thousands of priestesses were
dedicated to this form of “sanctified harlotry.” Phallic
worship (veneration of icons of the male reproductive
organs) was equally widespread; in various localities, it was
an integral part of the worship of Apollo, Artemis (the
Roman Diana) , Demeter, and especially of that of Dionysos
(Bacchus, in Latin). In most of the festivals of ancient
Greece, including even those of the athletic games, there
was this undercurrent of eroticism present. Replicas of
the phallus, even as late as the so-called “Enlightenment,”
were carried through the streets of many of the Greek
cities in solemn processions. As Dr. Will Durant has
writfen: “The phallus, symbol of fertility, was frankly
honored by crowds of men and women.’’ It is interesting
tQ note also that, at the same time, homosexuality was
rampant, in all circles of society. So-called “orgiastic”
religion was invariably characterized I > by
gross erotic practices, and all forms of sex p
&e Bacchae ,of Euripides. , Incidentally, this correlation
of “orgiastic” religious frenzy with sexual excess is the
Sinclair Lewis’ novel, Elmer Gnntry;
is an utter .travesty in its implied treatangelism,)
This Cult of Fertility beof
the Roman state “religion,”
e Empire: indeed the Saturnalia
was a time of generally uninhibited sexual promiscuity.
(Cf. Pad’s enumeratioq of the vices and sins of the Gen-
22

\
THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
tile world, in Romans i:i8-32; also the Old Testament
story of the conflict Ijetwe’en Jezebel and the prophet
Elijah, in 1 Kings, chs. 18, 19, 21, and 2 Kings, ch. 9:30-
37; cf. Rev. 2:20). (A word of caution at this point: as
an established custom the year round there is no evidence
that any people, primitive, prehistoric, or historic, ever
practised complete sexual promiscuity.)
(13) UT of the Chaldees (11:28, 31). The text
clearly indicates that the first stage of tbc migration was
from Ur to Haran. It w‘as in Haran that Terah died, and
from Haran that Abraham went forth on his divinely
commissioned pilgrimage (“he went out, not knowing
whither he went,” Heb. 11 :8). It was in Maran that
Nahor settled, influenced probably by the fertility of the
land and exercising the perogative of a first choice (cf.
again Gen. 3 1 : 19, 30-32). And, as noted above, from Gen.
3 1 : 19, 30-32, we must conclude that his descendants per-
petuated some of the idolatry‘ to which Terah and his gen-
eration had become addicted (cf. Josh. 24:2). On Josh.
24:2, Lias (PCS, 349) comments as follows: “The Rabbinic
tradition has great probability in it, that Abraham was
driven out of his native country for refusing to worship
idols. . , . No doubt his great and pure soul had learned
to abhor the idolatrous and cruel worship of his country-
men. By inward struggles, perhaps by the vague survival
of the simpler and truer faith which has been held to
underlie every polytheistic system, he had ‘reached a purer
air,’ and learned to adore the One True God. His family
were led to embrace his doctiines, and they left their native
land with him, But Haran, with its star-worship, was no
resting-place for him, So he journeyed on westward, leav-
ing the society of man, and preserving himself from temp-
tation by his nomad life. No wandering Bedouin, as some
would have us believe, but a prince, on equal terms with
Abimelech and Pharaoh, and capable of overthrowing the
mighty conqueror of Elam. Such an example might well
23

11 27-32 GENESIS
be brought to the memory of his descendants [that is,
through Joshua], who were now to be sojourners in the
land promised to their father. Guided by conscience albne,
with every external influence against him, he had worshiped
the true God in that land. No better argument could be
offered to his descendants, when settled in that same land,
and about to be bereft of that valuable support which
they had derived from the life and influence of Joshua.”
(14) Is there a time problem here, that is, in relution
to the Mosaic authorship? It is said that “the ancient. and
renowned city of Ur is .never ascribed expressly, in the
many thousands of cuneiform records from that site, to
the Chaldean branch of the Aramean group,” that, moreoyer,.
“the. Chaldeans were late arrivals in Mesopotamia,
and could not possibly be dated before the end of the
second millenium.” (But, cf. Acts 7:4, Neh. 9:7, Gen.
15 :7-in this last-named reference it is Jehovah Himself
who is represented as, reemphasizing the fact, to Abraham,
that He had brought the patriarch out of “Ur of the Chalbees.")
As a matter, of fact, no one seems to know pre-
I .
ciseJy when the AFamean peoples began to penetrate the
Mesopotamian regiqn The question here is: Had the
eaq branch come to be known as dwelling in the
y of Ur as far8back as in the time of Moses. The
best archaeological eviden seems to indicate that they
were in possession of s h lSQd, *kno?Yn* a PS
Lower Mesopotamia as early as 120 100 B.C.; a date
but little later>than that indicated for the time of Moses.
Moreover, the chronology of both the third and second
s, of Mesopotamian history can hardly be demore
than - approximate: its lack of preciseness
rmlt’ dogmatic conclusions. On this
es as follows (ABG, 80-81): “How
hronisrn originate? Any explanation
and purely conjectural. With these
reservations, the. following possibility may be hazarded.
24

\
‘\
THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
Both Ur and Haran were centers of moon worship, un-
rivaled in this respect by any other Mesopotamian city.
It is remotely possible, therefore, that this religious dis-
tinction, which was peculiar to Ur and Haran, caused
the two cities to be bracketed together, and then to be
telescoped in later versions, at a time when the Chaldeans
had already gained prominence, At all events, the correc-
tion required affects only incidental passages that are not
more than marginal footnotes to the history of the Pa-
triarchs. That history starts at Haran (12:J) as is evident
from its very first episode.” Murphy (MG, 2J6) writes
as follows: “In Ur of the Kusdim. The Kasdim, Cardi,
Kurds, or Chaldees are not to be found in the table of
nations. They have been generally supposed to be Shem-
ites. This is favored by the residence of Abram among
them, by the name Kesed, being a family name among his
kindred (Gen. 22:22), and by the language commonly
called Chaldee, which is a species of Aramaic. . . . The
Chaldees were spread over a great extent of surface; but
their most celebrated seat was Chaldea proper, or the land
of Shinar. The inhabitants of the country seem to have
been of mixed descent, being bound together by political
rather than family ties, Nimrod, their centre of union,
was a despot rather than a patriarch. The tongue of the
Kaldees, whether pure or mixed, and whether Shemitic or
not, is ppssibly ,distinct from the Aramaic, in which they
addressed Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel (1:4,
2:4). The Kaldin at length lost their nationality, and
merged into the caste or class of learned men or astrologers,
into which a man might be admitted, not merely by being
a Kaldai by birth, but by acquiring the language and learn-
ing of the Kasdim (Dan. 1:4, v:ll) ,” Cf. also Adam
Clarke (CG, 39): “The Chaldees mentioned here, had not
this name in the time of which Moses speaks, but they were
called so in the time ifz which Moses wrote. Chesed was
the son of Nahor, the son of Terah, ch. 22:22. From
25

11 :27-32 GENESIS
Chesed descended the Chasdim, whose language was the
same as that of the Amorites, Dan. 1:4, 2:4. These Cbas-
dim, whence the Chaldaioi (Gr,), Chaldeans of the Sep-
tuagint, Vulgate, and all later versions, afterward settled
on the south of the Euphrates. Those who dwelt in Ur
were either priests or astronomers, Dan. 2:10, and also
idolaters (Josh. 24:2, 3, 14, 15. And because they were
much addicted to astronomy, and probably to judicial
astrology, hence all astrologers were, in process of time,
called Chaldeans (Dan, 2:2-5).” There are others who
think that the name Chnldea or Chaldee was applied to a
people who were of a nomadic race originally, occupying
the mountains where the Kurds are now found, and that
the name was altered, through the interchange of letters,
which was a common occurrence, into Chaldaioi by the
Greeks. Rawlinson and others derive the name from
Khaldi which in the old Armenian tongue denotes moon-
worshipers. Ur of the Chaldees, then, they argue, was so
named as a city dedicated to the moon (cf. Job 31:26-28),
in conformity with the Zabian idolatry that early prevailed
in Chaldea.
It should be recalled, in this connection, that Mosaic
authorship of Gen and of the entire Pentateuch-does
not necessarily exclude (1) the use of both oral tradition
and written sources by the great Lawgiver Himself (cf.
Acts 7:22, Num. 21:14-15, Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18);
(2) explanatory names, words, and phrases (“interpola-
tions”) inserted by later scribes. To accept these state-
ments as facts is not to downgrade in any respect the
fundamental Mosaic origin and authority. It can hardly
be denied that Moses was the one man of his own time
most surely qualified to give us the greatest book of his
time, that which we now recognize as the part of the
Hebrew Scriptures which is designated the Torah. Nor
is any necessity laid upon anyone to resort to a highly
complex conjectural theory of Composite authorship, plus
26

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11 :27-32
an undetermined number of unidentified and unidentifiable
“redactors’) to provide a solution for these problems. The
problems themselves are relatively trivial, of the kind that
usually attach to documents of historical interest extend-
ing into the ancient past. Cornfeld (AtD, 49) comments
on this problem interestingly, as follows: “Hebrew tradi-
tion does not ascribe a written record to Abraham but to
Moses (we use the term ‘tradition’ in the sense of ‘what
was handed down’). It is fairly certain that the patriarchal
narratives, for the most part, derive from oral traditions,
many of which were written after the time of Moses. But
such oral traditions of pre-literary times are not to be
spurned. The reliability of transmission was assured by
the incredible memories of the Orientals. Hermann Gunkel
remarks that these traditions in Genesis break up into
separate tales, each unit characterized by a few participants
and the affairs of a few families, simple descriptions, laconic
speech, all welded into big bold strokes of narration with
artful use of suspense. This colorful and memorable mode
of narration is a vehicle for family and tribal traditions
especially suited to oral transmission. The extraordinary
feature is that Hebrew memory had preserved such pre-
literary traditions for more than a thousand years and set
them down in writing so faithfully.’’ (It will be noted
that any special inspiration of the Spirit of God in the
preservation and presentation of these “traditions” in the
Old Testament Scriptures, is carefully ignored in the fore-
going statements, even though repeatedly affirmed for
these Scriptures by the Bible writers themselves; cf. 1 Pet.
1:lO-12, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Acts 3:22-25). The
whole Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch rests upon
the basic assumption that the cultural background disclosed
in the Biblical accounts of the Patriarchal Age reflect a
milieu that would be appropriate only to a much later
period, probably as much later as that of the Exile: as
Wellhausen himself puts it: “We attain to no historical
27
. /

11 :27-32
GENESIS t -*’ -
knowledge of the patriarchs, but *oLly of the time when
the stories about them arose in the ~Israelite people; this
latter age is here unconsciously projected, in its inner and
in its outward features, into hoary antiquity, and is reflected
there like a glorified image.’*’- This view 4s ’today
thoroughly exploded by archeological’ evidefie
ample, Muilenburg (IBG, 29 6) writes-: ‘?Archaeology has
revealed an extraordinary correspondence between- the general
social and cultural conditions 1 portrayed in % Genesis
and those exposed by excavations. Discoveries from. such
sites as Nuzi, Mari, and elsewhere, provide the’geographical,
cultural, linguistic, and religious backgrourid dgainst which
the stories of the patriarchs are laid:”: ’ (Fee- my Genesis,
I I ,
Vol. I, pp. 5 5-70).
The Patriarchal Narratives.
We have already taken note of Cornfeld’s suggestions
as to the relation between “the oral .traditions of preliterary
times” and the patriarchal narratives in Genesis.
Several fantastic theories, conjectural to the point of
absurdity, have been put forward in recent times as to the
character of these narratives. Leupold (EG, 405-409)
has stated these views, and pointed up the fallacies in them
with great clarity, as follows: ‘Unfortunately, much confusion
has been introduced into the subject of the lives of
the patriarchs by certain untenable theories on the basis
of which far-reaching reconstructions have been attempted.
We shall list the major of these theories and indicate briefly
how they do violence to the available evidence. . . . One
more general mode of approach is that which roughly classifies
all the historical material of Genesis as Purely legendury.
Dillman gives a somewhat naive statement of the
case when he says: ‘Nowadays, of course, everyone quite
takes it for granted that all these tales about the fathers
do not belong into the realm of strict history but into
that of legend.’ Aside from the presumption which regards
all the opponents of this view as nobodies, the
28
. I-

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH ,1 I: 27-3 2
,assumption prevails ghat Israel must in all respects be like
,other nations. If other nations had tales from their early
history which were purely legendary, so must Israel’s record
be, Aside from being a begging of the principle, critics of
this stripe are ready to concede Israel’s distinct superiority
in the :matter of .religion. Why cannot the rest of the
life of this people furnish material superior to that found
in other nations,
“One of the most popular methods of dealing with
patriarchal history is to approach it on the basis of the
so-called tribal theory (Stamw%eorie) , This theory
assumes that the patriarchs were not actual historical
characters but fictitious characters which are to serve to
explain the origin of certain tribes. When Abram goes to
Egypt, the tribe in reality went in its earlier days, etc. The
patriarchs are eponymous characters to whom is ascribed
what befell the tribe. The grain of truth involved in this
theory is that, in reality, certain of the names mentioned
in the Table of Nations, chapter ten, are tribal names and
not names of persons. However, in such cases (10: 13, 14,
16, 17, 18) tribal names are used (“Amorite, Girgashite,”
etc.), and no attempt is made to make them appear as
individuals. The claim by which the tribal theory is
chiefly supported is that ethnology has no instances on
record where nations descended from an individual, as, for
example, Israel from Abram. However, on this score the
Biblical records happen to have preserved facts which
ethnology no longer has available. But how a nation may
descend from an individual is traced s’tep by step in the
Biblical record.
“Besides, the Genesis records in their detailed accounts
bear too much of the stamp of records concerning charac-
ters of flesh and blood as we have it. Dillmann may make
light of this fact and say: ‘We need nowadays no longer
prove that the wealth of picturesque details of the narra-
tive is not in itself a proof of the historicity of the things
29

11’:27-32 ’
narrated, but is, on the contrary; d characteristic markcof
the legend.’ But though legends :-do usually abound in
picturesque details, the things narrated. in Genesis very
evidently bear the stamp of sober truth. Christ and the
appostles recognized the patriarchs as historical .characters;
cf. such remarks as John 8: 56 and the’ almost- two dozen
references of Christ to Abraham alone,,
“More farfetched than either of 2 the two theories de-.
scribed thus far is the ustral-mytht tr5eoi.y. Briefly stated,
it amounts to this: even as Greek mythology had certain
tales by way of explanation of the origisfi of .the signs of
the zodiac, so did the Babylonians, and so; ’ of .necessity,
must Israel. An illustration: Sarah’s going. down into
Egypt as a sterile woman is the Israelitishi way of stating
the Babylonian myth of the descent of the goddess Ishtar
into the underworld to receive the boon of fertility. Even
though the story primarily tells of Abram’s going into
Egypt, and though Egypt has to be taken to signify the
underworld-a thing utterly without parallel in the Scrip-
tures-and even though Sarai must be interpreted to be
an adaptation of the name of the Babylonian goddess
Shavratu, the wife of the moon god, in spite of all these
forms of unwarranted treatment of the text, the adherents
of this theory fail to see its folly. We cannot but label
such a theory as an attempt to discredit Scripture.
“A fourth mode of misinterpreting the sacred narra-
tive is the attempt to account for it on the basis of what
we might term the Bedziin-ideal theory. Briefly, this in-
volves the notion that the writer or the writers of the
patriarchal history were in reality setting forth the type
of Beduin life as found in patriarchal times as an ideal for
a later more civilized and more degenerate age. The writer
is supposed to be enthusiastic for the Beduin type of life
and td see in it the cure for the social ills of his time. So
the Beduin religion is also set forth as an ideal of mono-
theistic religion. Incidentally, that utter simplicity sup-
30
. 1 3

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11 :27-32
posed to be set forth by this type of life is hardly charac-
keristic of the patriarchs, for already men like Abram are
in possession of much goods aiid great wealth aiid are in a
position to give rich gifts such as jewels to close friends
or prospective wives.
“In reading hdw Gunkel, an ardent advocate of the
purely legendary or mythical theory, manipulates his
theory, one is tempted to speak of still another theory,
namely the theory which glorifies the clever pranks of the
patriarchs. For in writing particularly of the devices
employed by Jacob in taking advantage of Esau or of
Laban, he writes as if the readers of these tales gloated
over them as a humorous glorification of a crafty ancestor.
On other occasions he writes with pitying disdain of the
very crude and elementary conceptions of the deity held
by these early writers. Again the effort to deflate the
conception of the Scriptures is manifest, and a Biblical book
is reduced to the level of a collection of amusing anecdotes.”
(See iizy Geiiesis, Vol. I, pp. 57-62, for a more detailed
accouizt of this acadewic nit-picking indulged by the
“aiialytical ci*itics” iii their treatiizeiit of all ancient writ-
iizgs. As a matter of fact, archeology already has exploded
these fabulous creations-iizy fhs, if yozt please-of the
senzinariaii we ii t ality .)
Leupold goes on to discuss briefly erroneous conceptions
of the patriarchal religion. He writes: “Parallel with
these faulty theories runs the erroneous conception of the
patriarchal religion. Here again we may refer to prevalent
theories. We shall do no more, however, than to list briefly
the erroneous conceptions we are referring to. Prominent
among these is the attitude which describes the early religion
of Israel as totenzisiiz. This endeavors to prove that
certain types of creatures were deemed sacred and were
worshiped by certain tribes. Proof for this view is deduced,
for example, in the case of Terah from the fact that his
name may signify a type of mountain goat. This proof
31

11 :27-32 GENESISti,‘:,;‘
grows very top-heavy, when so ,elaborate a conclusion ,is
built upon an accidental possibility. ,aH
“A second equally grievous hisconcep tion is that
which describes the religion of the ptriarchs as dncestor
worship. In proof of this, mention; is made, for.,example,
of the fact that certain graves are mentioned, like that of
Deborah (Gen. 35:8) in connectiofi with.-which an “oak
of weeping” is referred to, or where3 it is asserted, sacri-
fices to the dead were made. Nowhere are the statements
found, however, that would actually prove that the spirits
of the dead were thought of as gods. The whole con-
ception is as shallow and as unscientific as it can be.
“Then even fetishism has been attributed to the pat-
riarchs. Israel’s religion is supposed ’to give indication that
holy hills were reverenced as a fetish; so, too, fountains,
trees, and stones. Yet even the unlearned will be able to
detect quite readily that these strange reconstructions of
the text must be read into the text in a manner which
does violence to all sober and honest interpretation of the
text. The thought lying behind all such attempts is, of
course, this: since such lower levels of religion are seen on
the part of many other nations, therefore they must be
characteristic of Israel’s religion in its earlier stages-a
faulty style of argument.”
We may summarize all this, and refute forever the
implications involved, by affirming the fact which the
Biblical content emphasizes from beginning to end, namely,
that God called the fleshly seed of Abraham out of the
nations and put them in the pulpit of the world for the
specific twofold purpoise of preserviiig the knowledge of
the living and true God and preparing mankind for the
advent and ministry of His Son, Messiah. And even
though they yielded at times to the temptation to adopt
the coarse notions and licentious practices of their pagan
neighbors, it must be admitted that they did accomplish the
dual task to which God called them. Christians must
32
,

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 1 1 : 27-3 2
iiever lose sight of the fact that their God-the God and
Father of the Lord Jesus Christ-is the very God who
revealed Himself to Moses in the Sinai desert, and that for
their knowledge of this God-the one true God-they are
forever indebted to His ancient people, the Children of
Israel. (Cf. Exo. 3:14, Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:s) 46:9-11;
Matt. 16:16; John 3:16, 5:23; Eph. 1:3, 1 Thess. 1:9, etc.).
The P7)obleiii of UI~ versus Harniz
The fact has been emphasized in all three volumes of
the present textbook on Genesis that any Scripture text
must be interpreted, not only in relation to its immediate
context, but also in its relatioil to the teaching of the
Bible as a whole. Let it be emphasized again, at this point,
that this is a norm which must be followed in order for
one to arrive at any correct understanding of any segnient
of Scripture. In no area of the Biblical content is the
application of this norm more necessary than in resolving
the difficulty which commentators seem to manifest in
trying to determine whether God’s call came to Abraham
in Ur or in Haran: indeed some speculate that two calls
may have been involved. Of course, the iizodiu operaiidi
of the “analytical critics” is to resort to the unproved
hypothesis of separate Documentary sources. To the present
writer, this seems wholly unnecessary, for the simple
reason that other Scriptures alluding to the event resolve
the apparent uncertainty. Clearly the Mosaic narrative
does not even intimate the possibility of a call prior to
that which is specified in Gen. 12:1. The entire Scripture
tradition concurs in reporting that this first call came to
Abraham in Ur. The language of Gen. 15:7 and Neh.
9:7 might be construed to be somewhat indefinite; however,
all these passages certainly involve no disagreement
with the positive statement of Stephen in Acts 7:2 to the
effect that God’s first call to Abrain came to him in Ur
“before he dwelt in Haran,” and that pursuant to this call
Abram “came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt
33

‘ F
11 :27-32 GENESIS
in Haran, and from thence, when ‘his father was dead,
God removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell,”
that is, Canaan. It must be admitte4 at Stephen’s speech
before the Sanhedrin bears the stamp accuracy through-
out. Of course there could have been a repetition of the
Divine call in Haran after Terah’s death, but any positive
evidence of this is lacking in the Scripture story. It would
seem that immediately after the death of Terah, Abram
set forth on his long pilgrimage with .his wife Sarai and
his nephew Lot. The Divine call ap
was definitely a call to Abram to separ
“kindred,” which may have had reference to Nahor or
other members of Terah’s household. Terah may well
have had other offspring who are not mentioned because
they had no subsequent interrelationships with Nahor,
Bethuel and Laban, all three of whom are mentioned later
in the patriarchal narratives (Gen. 22:20-23, 24:15, 2f:20,
28:1-2), The Divine call was much more than a call to
Abram to separate himself from his kindred-it was a
Divine call to separate himself from the idolatrous tendencies
which had developed in Terah’s household.
We may safely conclude, I think, that the Call to
Abram for his pilgrimage of Faith was first made to him
in Ur; that his father Terah and brother Nahor and their
households, for whatever reason or reasons that may seem
possible, accompanied him to Haran; that Abram lingered
there until Terah died, at which time Nahor elected to
remain in that region, but Abram set out for the Land of
Promise with his wife Sarai and his nephew Lot. We are
told explicitly that Abram was 75 years old when he
entered upon this pilgrimage.
This was the second landmark ip the progressive
actualization of God’s Eternal Purpose, the first having
been the pronouncement of the mysterious oracle of Gen.
3:15 in ye the Seed of the Woman. It has been rightly
stated that Abram’s journey to the Promised Land was “no
34

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
routine expedition of several hundred miles,” but “the
start of iln epic voyage,” of “a quest that was to constitute
the central theme of all biblical history.” The third land-
mark in this actualization, as we know well, was the or-
ganization of the Israelite Theocracy at Sinai through the
mediatorship of Moses (John 1 : 17, Gal. 3 : 24-2 7, Col. 2 : 14,
2 Cor. 3:2-15, etc.),
1.
2.
3,
4.
s.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART TWENTY-FIVE
What is the central theme of the Bible?
How is redemption related to God’s Cosmic Plan?
How and when will this Cosmic Plan be consum-
mated?
What is the purpose of the Last Judgment?
State the probable explanation of I Cor. 6:2-3.
Explain in what sense Jesus is Alpha and Omega, the
First and the Last.
What do we mean by saying that God does not
f orekizow, but simply knows?
Explain the mysterous oracle of Gen. 3 : 15.
Show how the Scripture content is the record of the
successive limitations of the meaning of the phrase,
“The Seed of ‘the Woman.”
In whom is it finally and fully actualized?
What significant role does the word ccgenerationsyy
have in the story of the patriarchs?
What relation does this word have to the text material
which follows it? What does it have to that which
precedes it?
What are the suggested origins of the word “Hebrew”?
What are the suggested uses of the terms “Hebrew”
and “Israelite”?
What difference developed in the use of these terms
in the later history of the Jews?
How and when did the name “Jew” originate?

I1 :27-32 GENESIS
17. Name the three Dispensations of Biblical history, and
state the extent of each chronologically.
18. By what were the changes of Dispensation determined?
19. What is the meaning of the word “dispensation”?
20. Summarize the “generations of Terah” as given in
Gen. 11 :27-32.
21. How and when did the change from the generic
seed to the ethnic seed of the Woman take place?
22. What was the first stage of 8 the pilgrimage to the
Land of Promise?
23. What type of pagan “religion’z prevailed both in Ur
and in Haran?
24. What evidences do we have that Terah’s house had
become corrupted by pagan idolatry?
25. What are our reasons for believing that Abram was
Terah’s yougest son?
26. When and where did Haran die, in realtion to the
migrations of Terah and Abram?
27. What members of Terah’s household remained in
Haran and settled there?
28. What was the region designated Padan-aram in
Genesis?
29. What subsequent events related in Genesis indicate
continued intercourse between Abraham in Palestine
and his relatives in the region of Haran?
30. What kind of life did the members of Terah’s house
apparently live? Why are we justified in thinking
that these patriarchs were accustomed to frequent
migrations between Northern and Southern Mesopotamia?
31. Explain the chief features of the ancient pagan Cult
of Fertility.
32. Where are the practices of this Cult alluded to
especially in the New Testament?
33. What was the name of the Earth-Mother in Babylon?
In Phoenicia? In Syria? In Palestine? In Egypt?
36

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 11:27-32
34, Yhat was the principle of imitative magic which
characterized this Cult?
3 j, Explain the follo%ing practices: ritual prostitution,
phallic worship, orgiastic religion, ecstatic religion,
3 6, What was the Roman Saturnalia?
37, What was the essential character of these ancient
“agricultural” or “fertility” rites and festivals?
38, What evidence do we have from archaeology that the
cultural background portrayed in the book of Genesis,
in the patriarchal narratives, is historically correct?
39. Review the critical theories of the patriarchal narra-
tives as given by Leupold and the objections to each
of them.
40. Discuss the chronological problem of the Abrahamic
Pilgrimage in relation to the Mosaic authorship of the
Torah. How may the problem be resolved?
41. State clearly the problem of Ur and Haran in rela-
tion to the Call of Abram.
42. For what especially are all Christians indebted to the
ancient Children of Israel?
43. How account for the fact that Children of Israel
succeeded in large measure in resisting the inroads of
the pagan Cult of Fertility?
44. How old was Abram when he left Haran for the Land
of Promise. Whom did he take with him?
37

38
I

PATRIARCHAL PERIOD-LIFE OF ABRAHAM TO AGE ‘99
THE LIFE AND, JOURNEYS OF ABRAHAM 1
1
1. Ur of the Chaldees; Gen. 11 :27.31.
a, Original call to Abram; Acts 7:2-8.
b. Terah’s migration; Gen. 11:27-31.
2. Haran; Gen. 11 :32-12:3,
a. Death of Terah; 11:32.
e,
b. Second call to Abram; 12:l-3.
3. Shechem ; Gen. 12 :4-7,
a. First promise of land,
4, Between Bethel and Ai; 12 :8-9.
a, Altar built.
5. Egypt; 12 :10-20.
a. Lie about Sarai.
6. Back at Bethel; 13:l-17.
a. Separation from Lot.
7. Hebrow; 13:18-14:12.
a. Invasion from the East,
8. Dan; 14 :13-16.
a. Rescue of Lot.
9. Returning to l?ebYon and at Hebron ; 14 :17--19 :38.
a. Meeting with King Sodom and Melchizedek; 14:17-24.
b. God’s covenant with Abram; Ch. 15.
c. Hagar and Ishmael; Ch. 16.
d. Covenant of circumcision; 17 :1-14.
e. Promise of Isaac; 17:16-21.
f. Circumcision of household; 17 :22-27.
g. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; Chs. 18-19.
10. Gerar; Gen. 2O:l-21:20.
a. Lie about Sarah to Abimelech; Ch. 20.
b. Birth of Isaac; 21:l-7.
c. Removal of Hagar and Ishmael; 21:8-21.
11. Beersheba; 21 :22-34.
a. Covenant of Abraham and Abimelech.
12. Land of Moriah; 22 :1-18.
a. Offering of Isaac.
13, Beersheba; 22 :19-24.
a. Abraham learns of Nahor’s family.
14. Hebron; Ch. 23.
a. Death and burial of Sarah.
15. Beersheba; 24 :1-25 :8.
a. Wife for Isaac; Ch. 24.
b. Marriage to Keturah; 26:l-4.
c. Last days of Abraham; 25:6-8.
16. Hebron; 25 :9-10.
a. Burial of Abraham.
39

NOTES-
a. The above information is taken from Gen. 11:2?, 29; 19:37-38; 20:12: 22:20-28:
24:16: 28:2, 6.
b. A double line indicates a marriage.
C. Gen. 20:12. indicates that Sarai was half-sister to Abram. The language of this verse
could indicate that she was Abram's niece, but the fact that there was but ten years difference
between his age ind.hers. (Gen. 17:17) renders this hypothesis less probable.
d. Tradition has identified Iseah with Sarai, Abram's wife, but there is no real basis for
such 9 supposition..\ .
4u

PART TWENTY-SIX
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
(Genesis, cb. 12; cf. Hebrews 1 1 : 8-19)
1. The Biblical Account
1 Now Jehovah said uizto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from, thy kindred, and from thy father’s
house, unto the land that I will show thee: 2 and I will
make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, azd make
thy name great; and be thou a b1essin.g: 3 a?.td I will bless
them that bless thee, aiid him that curseth thee will I curse:
and iiz thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed,
5. So Abram went, as Jehovah h5ad spoken unto him; and
Lo$ went with him: and Abram was seventy an,d five yews
old when he departed out of Hwan. 5 And Abram took
Sarai his wife, aizd Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance
that they had gathered, aizd the souls tbdit they bad
gotten in Haran; aiqd they went forth to go into the land
of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. 6 And
Abram passed through the land i~izto the place of Shechem,
unto the oak of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in
the land. 7 And Jehouah appeared uizto= Abram, and said,
Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there budded he
an altar unto Jehovah, who appeared uizto him. 8 And he
removed from thence uiito the mountaiiz on the east of
Bethel, aiid pitched his tentJ having Beth-el 011. the west,
and Ai on, the east: and there he builded an altar unto
Jehwah, and called upon the nmze of Jebowh. 9 And
Abranz jouwieyed, going on still toward the South.
10 And there was a famine in the land: aizd Abram
weiit down iizto EgyPZ to sojoitriz there; for the famine was
sore in the land. 11 And it came to ja~s, when he was
come near to enter into Egypt, that he said uizto Sarai his
wife, Behold I*OW, I know that thou art a fair woman to *
look upon: 12 and it will come to pass, when the Egyptians
41

I2:1-20 GENESIS ,
shall see thee, thut they will say, This is his wife: und they
will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray
thee, thou drt my sister; that it may be well with me fm
thy sake, and that nzy soul may live becdzcse of thee. 14
And it canze to Pass, that, when Abrm wus come inio
Egypt, the Egyptiuns beheld the woman that she was very
fair. 1j And the princes of Pharaoh saw her, and praised
her to Phuruob: and the womun wus taken into Pharaohfs
house. 16 And he dealt well with Abrm for her sake: and
he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, und .ul.len-servants, and
maid-servants, und she-asses, and cdmels. 17 And Jehovah
plagued Pharaoh und his house with great plagues becuuse
of Surai, Abrum's wife. 18 And Pibarwoh called Abrum,
and said, What is this that thou bast done unto me? why
didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 why saidst
tbm, She is my sister, so that I took her to be my wife?
now therefowe behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
20 And Phurmh gave men charge concerning him: und
they brought him om the wuy, and his wife, and all thut he
hud.
2. Ur of the Chaldees
It should be noted that the earliest civilizations-
those with which the actual history of man begins-flour-
ished, as a rule, in relation geographically to the great river
systems. This location was due to the fact that the various
peoples learned to provide for a more abundant (temporal)
life by the development of irrigation to enhance the
fertility of the soil. Moreover, with the early invention of
the sailboat water became the chief means of transporta-
tion. Most of the big cities of the ancient world were
built on these waterways, e.g., the Nile, the Tigris-
Euphrates, the Indus, and (probably) the Hwang-Ho and
Wei, Those which were established later on large bodies
of water (gulfs and seas) were, according to Thucydides,
the Greek historian, built some thirty to fifty miles inland
42

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:1-20
for protection against pirates. Each of these inland cities,
therefore, had its harbor port, e.g., Rome and Ostia, Athens
and the Piraeus, and Miletus, which served as a harbor port
for several inland cities (cf. Acts 20: 17).
Early in the history of the Near East the Tigris-
Euphrates valley was made a very fertile area by irrigation.
This area is commonly known in history by the name of
Mesopotamia, a word meaning “between the rivers.” In
Egypt, of course, the annual inundations of the Nile pro-
vided the necessary ingredients for fertilization on both
sides of the river.
When the curtain first goes up on the stage of human
history we find wave after wave of nomadic peoples
pouring into the Near East both from the western desert
and from the northern area around the Caspian Sea. As
far back as the fourth millenium before Christ the central
area of Mesopotamia was known as Akkad or Accad (cf.
Gen. 10:10, “the land of Shinar”; Isa. 11:11, Dan. 1:2),
and the southern part, just above the Persian Gulf, as
Sumer: hence the Accadians and Sumerians. From the
first the peoples who occupied the territory now known
generally as the Near East were of Semitic origin. Beyond
the Mesopotamian area, that is, to the east of it, Indo-
European (Aryan) peoples began to take over; among
these were the Medes and the Elamites, some of whom
evidently pushed into the Indus Valley; these were followed
later by the Kassites. The earliest prevailing language
among these peoples was the Sanskrit.
Inscriptions indicate that an, early Semitic dynasty
flourished, founded by Sargon, who built a new capital,
Akade, the exact location of which is unknown today.
Sargon established his hegemony over Alckad, Sumer, Elam,
Syria and Anatolia (the early name for what is known
today as Asia Minor). After an interval of some twenty-
five years, Sargon’s grandson, Naramsin, succeeded to the
hegemony and proved himself to be another very strong
43

12:l-20 GENESIS
ruler. This Empire came to be known as the Akkadian
Empire and survived for about two centuries (c. 2350-
21 50 B.C.) , Later, when Babylon rose to pre-eminence in
the area, the name Akkad came to be used to designate the
whole of northern Babylonia. Prior to the Early Dynastic
Period initiated by Sargon’s conquests, Lower Mesopotamia
had been only a cluster of city-states constantly at war
among themselves-Ur, Eridu, Babylon (Babel) , Larsa,
Erech, Kish, Lagash, Nippur, etc. (cf. again Gen. 10: 10).
Later, toward the end of the third millenium, the
Amurr ( ccwesterners’’) -the Biblical Amorites, Gen. 15 : 16,
48:22; Deut. 20:17, etc.-a new wave of Semites began
pouring into Mesopotamia from the West. Included in this
folk movement, apparently of several closely related ethnic
groups, must have been the early Arameans. It seems
evident that these western Semites also occupied Palestine
about the beginning of the second millenium. Some of
these peoples who occupied the Palestinian area took over
northern Canaan (note, archaeological discoveries at Ugarit)
and, Syria as far, as its southern coast. These people entrenched
themselves at Mari on the Euphrates in Upper
Mesopotamia (see archaeological discoveries there also) .
The zenith of Amorite political power was reached in the
First Dynasty of Babylon in the days of the great king
and. lawgiver, Hammprabi (c. 1728-1686 B.C.). (It is
intriguing to note ’that various records at Mari and elsewhere
in Mesopotamia, mention another troublesome group,
the “Apiru.” or “Habiru”-a name that is thought by many
scholars to be equiyaleot to the name “Hebrews.”)
,
Following the ,strong Semitic Dynasty of Agade (23 SO-
21 50 B.C.) the Second .Dynasty Ur (of which little seems
to be knowp) j, and a, subseqpent cultural eclipse under the
Gutians (21SOr2070J, the ‘Third Dynasty of Ur~. (2070-
1960) was ushered in; in which a succession of strong
rulers .led in a Sumerian renaissance. The population of
Ur is estiqated to have been more than half a million souls
44

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:l-20
during this period. The mightiest building project of the
time was the great ziggurat erected by Ur-Nammu and
his son, Shulgi. This powerful Dynasty came to an end
when the Amorites of Mari and the Elamites from the east
took over southern Mesopotamia, The city was later
brought under the control of Hammurabi and was de-
stroyed by his son, when it rebelled against Amorite power.
The whole area was further ravished by the barbarian
Kassites, and the city of Ur went into total eclipse until
the rebuilding of it was undertaken by the Chaldeans
Nebuchadnezzar I1 and Nabonidus. Further improve-
ments were made later by the Persians under Gyrus.
Folk movements became more numerous in the early
part of the second millenium before Christ. Other ethnic
peoples came into the picture. Among these were the
Hittites of Asia Minor, the partially Semitic Hyksos who
had imposed their rule on Egypt from about 1700 to 1570
B.C., and the most puzzling of all, the Hurrians.
The Hurrians (Biblical Horites: cf. Gen. 14:6, 36:30;
Deut. 2:12) poured into the Fertile Crescent in a steady
stream: as Cornfeld puts it, “and into the political vacuum
created by the downfall of the Sumerian (Third) Dynasty
of Ur.” They evidently originated frsm the Caucasian
and Armenian mountains and infiltrated the whole Tigris-
Euphrates area. They were not strictly a warlike people:
hence they penetrated every section of Western .Asia, in-
cluding Syria and Palestine. They seem to have been under
the leadership of an Aryan upper class. They’gave much
attention to horse-breeding, ‘and in battle they used the
horse and the chariot. They attained their grea’test prom-
inence in the kingdom of the Mitanni (1470-1350) which
extended from east of the upper Tigris valley’ to the north
Syrian coast. One of the best ‘known Hurrian sites is
Nuzi (or Nuzu), where thousands of documents were
discovered by a Harvard University expedition from 192J
to 1931 under the direction of Edward Chiera. More than
45

12:l-20 GENESIS
20,000 cuneiform tablets from the second millenium,
brought to light at Nuzi, constitute a primary source of
information concerning life in northern Mesopotamia, the
district (Haran) where the Biblical patriarchs lived for a
time and to which they sent to find suitable wives for
their sons.
By 2000 B.C. various groups of Indo-European origin
had infiltrated Asia Minor, These were organized into a
complex of city-states. The most influential of these
groups became known as the Hittites. The capital of the
ancient Hittite Empire was Hattusas (modern Boghazkoy) ,
ninety miles east of modern Ankara, on the great bend
of the Halys River. Excavations began at this site in
1906, and have brought to light the story of a once power-
ful empire, as evidenced by the fact that one of their
kings, Mursilis, captured Aleppo in 15 3 0, then thrust across
Hurrian territories, raided northern Mesopotamia, and
sacked Babylon. A peace treaty between the Hittite king,
Hattusilis I11 (c. 1275-1250) and the Egyptian Pharaoh
Rameses I1 is the oldest such treaty known to students of
ancient history, and indicates that the Hittites were power-
ful.enough to stop the Egyptian army in its tracks in a
battle at Kadesh (c. 1296 B.C,) Beleaguered, however, by
Hurrian aggressiveness and inner political conflicts, the
Hittites finally withdrew into Asia Minor where their in-
fluences are felt even down to our own time. The Hittite
kingdom came to an end when overrun by the so-called
“Sea peoples” from the eastern Mediterranean, many of
whom seem to have been of Cretan origin (e+, the Phil-
istines). The Hittites flourished at about the dawn of the
Iron Age. (Iron was discovered about 1jOO B.C. some-
where in the area around the Black Sea.) The Hittite
monopoly on iron.gave them formidable power for a time,
but this power-. declined as other peoples began to make
use of iron weapons. Outposts of Hittite culture survived
in northern Syria: these Hittite principalities were those to
46

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:1-20
which the Old Testament continued to refer for several
centuries, (Cf. Gen. 1Y:20, Num. 13:29, Josh. 3:10, 1
Ki. 11:1, 2 IG. 7:6, 2 Chron. 1:17),
The Hyksos have been described as a motley horde
bent solely on conquest and looting. They invaded Egypt
about 1800 (or 1700?) B,C, and kept control of the coun-
try until about 1J70 B.C., when they were driven out
and chased into Palestine by the Pharaohs of the 18th
Dynasty. Several of the Palestinian cities were destroyed
during the sixteenth century, and the Hyksos type of
fortifications which have been excavated at Megiddo,
Shechem, and Lachish, furnish evidence of the savage
intensity of these campaigns.
The last great empires of the Fertile Crescent were,
of course, those which followed the migrations described
in the foreging paragraphs; hence, their history does not
have too much relevance to that of the Patriarchal Age.
These were, in the order named, the Assyrian, Chaldean
(late Babylonian) , Persian, and Macedonian (the short-
lived empire of Alexander the Great). The Roman Empire
was the last and most extensive and most powerful, having
extended its rule over the entire Fertile Crescent, including
North Africa, Egypt, and the whole of the Near East and
Mesopotamia.
The departure of Abram from Ur is correlated in
time with the Third Dynasty (the most powerful) of that
city. The exact location of the original site has long been
a matter of debate. The Moslems traditionally have identi-
fied it with Urfa, a city in Upper Mesopotamia near Haran
(the Greeks called it Edessa) , The location which com-
monly has been identified with Abram’s Ur is in Southern
Mesopotamia some 160 miles from the present head of the
Persian Gulf. This identification originated in the late
nineteenth century when so many references to Ur were
found in the inscriptions which were numerous and wide-
spread throughout the Mesopotamian area. The discoveries
47

12:l-20 GENESIS
made by the joint expedition of the British Museum and
the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, under
Charles Leonard Woolley (1922-1934), set forth volum-
inously in official reports, seem to verify the Southern
Mesopotamian identification. However, the debate has
been revived in recent years by C. H. Gordon and other
archaeologists who conclude that the original Ur was not
Urffa, but Ura, another town near Haran, which was
under the control of the Hittites. DBA, 602: “Gordon
treats Abraham as a merchant-prince or Tamkarum from
the realm of the Hittites. His three main arguments are:
(1) There is strong tradition connecting Ur of the Chal-
dees with Northern Mesopotamia. (2) The picture of the
patriarchs as city-merchants fits known facts. (3) The
term ‘Chaldees’ can be adequately applied to Northern
Mesopotamia.” The consensus of archeological scholarship,
however, still runs preponderantly in favor of the tradi-
tional Sumerian Ur as Abram’s point of departure on his
pilgrimage to the Land of Promise.
Excavations at Sumerian Ur indicate that a highly
advanced culture flourished there at a very early age. It
is the Ur of Abram’s time, however, in which we are
particularly interested here. Like all these cities of Meso-
potamia, Ur had its sacred enclosure with its complex of
temples and shrines. The ruins of the great temple-tower
(ziggurat, which, we are told, once rose from qhe plain
along the Euphrates to a height of seventy feet), built by
Ur-Nammu, *founder of the prosperous and powerful Third
Dynasty, still dominate the site. Throughout the history
of Babylonia down to the middle of the first millenium
B.C., this sacred area with its ziggurat was the most im-
portant temple area in Mesopotamia: indeed, it was the
place to which the devout made pilgrimages and which
they sought ‘for a place of burial. Openings in the outer
city walls which were oval in shape allowed boats to enter
the city itself. It could be said of the people of Ur, as
48

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12 : 1-20
said later by the Apostle on the Hill of Ares, of the Athenian
people and their philosophers, that they were indeed
C t
cc very religious” (or superstitious,” Acts 17:22) . The
ruling deity at Ur was Nanna (known among the Semites
as “Sin”). The city abounded in many other temples and
shrines dedicated to other gods. There were also many
public chapels, wayside shrines, household chapels, and
other evidences that idolatry flourished throughout the
city, including terra cotta figurines indicative of the Cult
of the Earth-Mother, which was often the most debased
form of pagan “religious” ritual. The following note
(HSB, 21) is important: “Abraham has often been con-
ceived of as an ignorant nomad, an illiterate and un-
educated ancient. This is not so. Archaeological discover-
ies have shown that Ur of the Chaldees was a center of
advanced culture. There were libraries in the schools and
temples. The people used grammars, dictionaries, encyclo-
pedias, and reference works along with textbooks on
mathematics, religion, and politics. What was true for
Babylonia was also true for Egypt where more than a
thousand years before Abraham’s time, writing was well
established. It is quite possible, therefore, that Abraham
left written records which were incorporated in the Pen-
tateuch.” (For a study of the archeological discoveries
relevant to the Patriarchal Age, at Ugarit, Hattusas, Mari,
Nuzi, Larsa, Nippur, Lagash, Uruk (Erech), etc., The
Biblical World, edited by Pfeiffer, published by Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, is highly recommended.)
3. The Call of Abva7m (12:l-3)
(CECG, 129) in re Gen. 12:1-5, as follows: “An
attentive consideration will suffice to show, from the close
resemblance of the phraseology in this passage and in Acts
7:2-3, that Moses refers to one and the same call with
Stephen; and that he now only resumes, in his characteristic
manner, the subject of Abram’s departure from his native
land, which had been briefly related in ch. 11 : 3 1, in order
49
\

12:l-20 GENESIS
to furnish some important details. In fact the narrative
in the first five verses of this chapter is merely an expansion
of the short notice in the preceding one; and therefore
our translators have properly rendered the verb in the
Pluperfect tense, ‘had said.’ This revelation is not to be
accounted for by representing it, as one writer has recently
done, to be only ‘the newly increased light of his inner
consciousness,’ or by saying, with another, that the ‘Lord’
of Abram ‘was as much a creature of human imagination
as a Jupiter or an Apollo.’ In whatever way it was made
to him-whether in a dream, by a vision, or by a visible
manifestation (the language of Stephen, Acts 7:2, implies
that it was some glorious theophany, perhaps like the super-
natural light and words that suddenly converted Paul-a
miracle well adapted to the conceptions of a Zabian idol-
ater) -Abram was thoroughly persuaded that it was a
divine communication; and it was probably accompanied
by such special instructions as to the being and character
of ‘the Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth,’
as carried conviction to his understanding and heart.” (It
is impossible) for me to accept the view that Abram had
drifted away from the knowledge of the true God so far
as to share the idolatry of some of the members of his
family: the Scripture story does not intimate such a notion,
and surely Abram’s subsequent walk of faith invalidates it.
C.C.).
Whitelaw (PCG, 117) writes: “Designed to trace the
outward development of God’s kingdom on the earth, the
narrative now concentrates its attention on one of the
foregoing Terachites, whose remarkable career it sketches
with considerable minuteness of detail, from the period of
his emigration from ChaIdea to his death at Hebron in the
land of Canaan. Distinguished as a man of undoubted
superiority both of character and mind, the head at least
of two powerful and important races, and standing, as one
might say, on the threshold of the historical era, it is yet
50

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12: 1-20
chiefly as his life and fortunes connect with the Divine
purpose ol salvation that they find a place in the inspired
record, The progress of infidelity during the four centuries
that had elapsed since the Flood, the almost universal cor-
ruption of even the Shemite portion of the human family,
had conclusively demonstrated the necessity of a second
Divine interposition, if the knowledge of salvation were
not to be completely banished from the earth. Accord-
ingly, the son of Terah was selected to be the founder of
a new nation, in which the light of gospel truth might be
deposited for preservation until the fulness of the times,
and through which the promise of the Gospel might be
conducted forward to its ultimate realization in the mani-
festation of the woman’s seed. Partly to prepare him for
the high destiny of being the progenitor of the chosen
nation, and partly to illustrate the character of that gospel
with which he was to be entrusted, he was summoned to
renounce his native country and kinsmen in Chaldea, and
venture forth upon an untried journey in obedience to the
call of heaven, to a land which he should afterward receive
for an inheritance. In a series of successive theophanies or
Divine manifestations, around which the various incidents
of his life are grouped-in Ur of the Chaldees (Acts 7:2),
at Moreh in Canaan (Gen. 12:7) , near Bethel (ibd 13 ) ,
at Mamre (ibid. 11, 17); and on Moriah (ibid. 22)-he
is distinctly promised three things-a land, a seed, and a
blessing-as the reward of his compliance with the heavenly
invitation; ‘and the confident persuasion both of the reality
of these gracious promises and of the Divine ability and
willingness to fulfill them forms the animating spirit and
guiding principle of his being, in every situation of life,
whether of trial or of difficulty, in which he is subsequently
placed.’’
Murphy (MG, 261) writes to the point, in these
statements: “The narrative now takes leave of the rest of
the Shemites, as well as the other branches of the human
51

12:l-20 GENESIS 6
family, and confines itself to Abram. It is no part of the
design of Scripture to trace the development of worldiness.
It marks its source, and indicates the law of its downward
tendency; but then it turns away from the dark detail,
to devote its attention to the way by which light from
heaven may again pierce the gloom of the fallen heart.
Here, then, we have the starting of a new spring of
spiritual life in the human race.”
Note the following also (SIBG, 230): “V. 1. While
Abram was in Ur of the Chaldees, God appeared to him,
probably in human shape, Acts 7:2, as He did at least
eight times afterward (Gen. 12:6-7, 13:3-4, lJ:l, 17:1,
18:1, 21:12, 22:1, lr), and called him to leave his country
and his father’s house, which, for some time past, had been
infected with idolatry (Josh. 24:2, 2 Cor. 6:17, Rev.
18:4, Isa. 41:2, Neh. 9:7). He, readily surrendering all
for the sake of Christ, (Psa. 45:lO-11, Luke 14:26), in
obedience to the divine command, and relying on His
direction and protection, went forth, not knowing whither
the Lord intended to lead him (Heb. 11:8). But as they
had stopped too long in Haran, I suppose the call here
mentioned was one which he received anew after the death
of his father.” (This last view, of course, has always been
a matter of controversy.) Payne (OHH, 36) : “Abraham
grew up in Ur just before the rise of Dyn. I11 and the
Sumerian renaissance. Here, in a center for the worship
of the moon god Sin, God called Abraham to a life of
pilgrimage to the celestial city (Heb. 11:13-16). Gen.
15:7 (cf. Neh. 9:7) notes that God was responsible for
Abram’s movement from Ur; but there is no information
in the 0.”. on the precise form of the call. Acts 7:2-4
reveals, however, that God appeared to him there and told
him to move out. It was by faith (Heb. 11 : 8), the destination
not yet given. (This verse must apply to the call in
Ur, for by Haran he knew where he was going, Gen.
12:5); and Abram obeyed. He seems to have persuaded
52

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:1-20
his father, for Terah led the party (Gen. 11:31)? which
included Terah, Abram, Sarai, and Lot; Nahor’s family
stayed but followed to Haran later (24:10, 27:43).”
Note the Call aiid the Pulfilliizeiit. V. 2-Abraham
was made a great iiatioiz. His posterity by Ishmael, by the
sons of Keturah, and by Esau, were exceedingly numerou8
(16:lO) 17:20, 21:13, 25:l-18; ch. 36; Num., ch. 31;
Judg., chs. 6, 7). His seed of promise, by Jacob, were as
the stars of heaven and the dust of the earth in multitude
(13:16, lr:?, 22:17, 28:3, 14; 32:12; Num., ch. 1, also
23:lO; Heb. ll:l2; 1 Chron., ch. 21; 1 Ki. 4:20; 2 Chron.,
ch. 17; Jer. 33:22). His spiritual seed, followers of his
faith and obedience, are still more numerous, a multitude
which no man can number (Psa. 2:8-9, 22:27-30; also
Psalms 62, 88; Isa., chs. 52, 59, 60; Rev. 7:4-9, 11:15).
All the spiritual children of Jesus, his einineiat seed, are in-
cluded herein (Isa. 53:lO-12, Gal. 3:26-29). God blessed
Abram (1) with the numerous seed mentioned, (2) with
Canaan, as the future property of part of them, (3) with
Christ, as his eiiziizeizt seed (Gal, 3 : 16) , with all spiritual
blessings in Christ (Gal. 3: 14, Eph. 1:3), Abram was a
blessing (1) to his friends and servants, who were in-
structed by him (Gen. 14: 14,) 18: 19) , (2) to his posterity,
who were blessed for his sake (Exo. 3:6-8, Lev. 26:42, Gen.
17:20), (3) to the world, as an eminent pattern of faith
and holiness (Rom., ch. 4), and as the progenitor of Christ
the Savior (Gal. 3 : 13, 16). God did and will remarkably
befriend and prosper the friends of Abram and his natural
seed, but especially of Jesus Christ and his spiritual seed;
and did and will remarkably punish their enemies (Josh.
2:9, Gen. lJ:l3-14, Exo. 17:8-16; Matt. 10:42, 25:41-46).
All the faiizilies of the earth aye blessed in Abram. He was
of great service to the Canaanites, in imparting revelation
to some of them, or in setting before them all an engaging
example of virtue. His seed of promise, and especially his
spiritual seed, are useful on that account, and have been
53

12:l-20 GENES IS
and are still the means of the prosperity or protection of
nations (ha. 6:13, 10:24-25, Matt. 24:22). But it is
properly in his seed (Christ) that men are blessed. ’ Multi-
tudes of nations receive much outward happiness, and the
dispensation of gospel ordinances, in consequence of his
undertaking for his people (Matt. 24:24, Isa., chs. 35, 49,
50, also 6:13). And believers, gathered out of all nations,
are blessed in him with temporal, spiritual and eternal bless-
ings (Gal, 3:16, Acts 3:25-26, Eph. 1:3, Psa. 72:17-19,
Isa. 45:17-25). It is easy to see, that the subsequent
promises and threatenings, nay, the doctrines and laws,
mentioned in Scripture, are but an enlarged exposition of
these two verses; and the whole fate of the Jewish and
gospel church, nay, of the saints in heaven and the lost
in hell, are but one continued fulfillment thereof. Verse 3
-The command given to Abraham involved great personal
sacrifices-country, kindred, and home; and also great
faith-he knew not where he was going. But the blessing
promised was most cheering and comprehensive. It ern-
braced himself, all who favored and honored him, the
whole nation that was to spring from him, and all the
families of the earth. Abraham by faith saw in this last
promise the most glotious and blessed of all truths-the
atoning work of the Messiah (Acts 3:21i, Gal. 3:8). (See
SIBG, p. 230). Note that in calling the fleshly seed of
Abram, God did not abandon the other “families of the
earth,” but ‘was in fact making provision for their future
spiritual welfare also. ’
Murphy (MG, 263) : “In all God’s teachings the near
and the sensible come before the far and the conceivable,
the ‘present and the earthly before the eternal and the
heavenly. Thus Abram’s immediate acts of self -denial
are his leaving his country, his birthplace, his home. The
promise to him is to be made a great nation, be blessed,
and have a great name in the new land which the Lord
would show him. This is unspeakably enhanced by his
54

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:l-ZO
being made a blessing to all nations. God pursues this
mode of teaching for several important reasons. First,
the sensible and the present are intelligible to those who are
taught. The Great Teacher begins with the known, and
leads the mind forward to the unknown. If he had begun
with things too high, too deep, or too far from the range
of Abram’s mental vision, he would not have come into
relation with Abram’s mind. It is superfluous to say that
he might have enlarged Abram’s view in proportion to the
grandeur of the conceptions to be revealed. On the same
principle he might have made Abram cognizant of all
present and all developed truth. On the same principle
he might have developed all things in an instant of time,
and so have had done with creation and providence at once.
Secondly, the present and the sensible are the types of the
future and the conceivable; the land is the type of the
better land; the nation of the spiritual nation; the temporal
blessing of the eternal blessing; the earthly greatness of the
name of the heavenly. And let us not suppose that we
are arrived at the end of all knowledge. We pique our-
selves on our advance in spiritual knowledge beyond the
age of Abram. But even we may be in the very infancy
of mental development. There may be a land, a nation, a
blessing, a great name, of which our present realizations or
conceptions are but the types. Any other supposition
would be a large abatement from the sweetness of hope’s
overflowing cup. Thirdly, those things which God now
promises are the immediate form of his bounty, the very
gifts he begins at the moment to bestow. God has his gift
to Abram ready in his hand in a tangible form. He points
to it and says, This is what thou presently needest; this I
give thee, with my blessing and favor. But, fovrthly,
these are the earnest and the germ of all temporal and
eternal blessing. Man is a growing thing, whether as an
individual or a race. God graduates his benefits according
to the condition and capacity of the recipients. In the first
55

12: 1-20 GENESIS
boon of his good-will is the earnest of what he will con-
tinue to bestow on those who continue to walk in his ways.
And as the present is the womb of the future, so is the
external the symbol of the internal, the material the shadow
of the spiritual, in the order of the divine blessing. And
as events unfold themselves in the history of man and
conceptions in his soul within, so are doctrines gradually
opened up in the Word of God, and progessively revealed
to the soul by the Spirit of God.” (Cf. ha. 28:9-10,
Mark 4:28, 1 Cor. 15:42-49, Heb. lO:l, Eph. 1:13-14,
Col. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:5-11, 3:18).
The Abrahamic Covenant, which is mentioned several
times in Genesis (cf. 12:2, 3, 7; 13:14-17; chs. 15, 17;
ch. 18; 21:12-13; 22:9-18) was essentially a covertant of
promise; the only requirement was that Abram should
respond in faith and trust to God’s calling him away from
his land and his family. And, although subsequent ramifica-
tions of the covenant occur in Genesis, the two basic
features remain constant throughout. These are the Zand
and the descendants. “The progeny of Abraham was to
be a blessing to all and Abraham was guaranteed a son
through whom his line would be perpetuated.” This son,
Isaac, therefore, came to be known as the child of promise,
and the land to which Abram journeyed became designated
the. kand of promise (Exo. 12:25, Deut. 19:8-10, Josh.
2j:5, .Acts 7:4-5,. Gal. 4:22-31; Gen. 17:15-19; Heb.
1.1:9-12,. 17-19, etc.). Green (UBG, 163): “In the
original promise and in the renewal of it upon two occa-
sions of uncsual- solemnity, one when the Lord signified
his approval of Abraham’s unfaltering faith by coming as
his guest in human form, and again as a reward of his
most signal ‘act of obedience, the blessing is set before him
in its most ample sweep. But during all the intervening
period of long expectancy of his promised child the divine
comhunicationsd made to him from time to time were
designed to keep alive his faith in that particular promise,
56

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12: 1-20
whose fulfillment was so long delayed; hence, mention is
merely made of his numerous seed, and of the land which
they were to occupy, alike in 13:14-17, lF:F-7, 18, which
the critics assign to J, and in 17:4-8, which they give to
P.” There is no occasion here for the assumption of
different sources.
Note, in this connection, JB (29) : “As a result of
God’s call and promise of posterity Abraham cuts off all
earthly ties and with his childless wife, 11:30, sets out for
an unknown land. It is Abraham’s first act of faith; it
will be renewed when the promise is repeated, 15:5-6, and
put to the test when God asks for the surrender of Isaac
who was the fruit of that promise, ch. 22. To Abraham’s
unquestioning acts of faith the chosen people owes its
existence and destiny, Heb. 11:8-19. Not only Abraham’s
physical descendants, but all who, in virtue of the same
faith, become his sons, will have their share in that destiny,
as the Apostle shows, Rom. 4, Gal. 3:7.”
Although the emphasis in the Abrahamic promise is on
the land and the seed, in its fullness the promise is a sevenfold
one, as follows: (1) “I will make of thee a great
nation.” The phrase, “great nation,” of course, implies
infinitely more than great in number. “Since the greatness
is of God’s making, it involves true greatness in every
sense. If ever there was a great nation, it was Israel.”
Israel achieved true greatness in her preservation of the
knowledge of the living and true God, and Israel was great,
inconceivably great, in her presentation to the world of
the Messiah, the world’s Redeemer. (2) “I will bless
thee,” This statement refers to Abram himself. “A man
is blessed when due to the gracious working of God all
goes well with him (cf. 39:~); the things that he undertakes
thrives; and true success crowns all his endeavors,”
(3) “I will make thy name great.” Note the various
names given to him: “the father of a multitude” (17:F),
a prince of God (23 :6) ; the man in God’s confidence
57

12:l-20 GENESIS
‘(18:17-19); a prophet (20:7); the servant of God (Psa.
10J:6); and the friend of God (Jas. 2:23). (4) “And
be thou a blessing.” This expresses something that God
does. “God is the one who in the last analysis makes Abram
to be a true blessing unto others. But at the same time,
a moral responsibility of Abram’s is involved: He should do
his part that he may become a blessing to others. Conse-
quently the imperative, ‘be thou a blessing.”’ (I) “I will
bless them that bless thee,” “So intimately is God con-
cerned in having men take the proper attitude toward this
prophet and servant of His that whoever wishes Abram
well, to him will God do good.” (6) “And him that
curseth thee will I curse.’’ “The deeper reason behind all
this is that Abram will be so closely identified with the
good work of God, that to curse him comes to be almost
the equivalent of cursing God.” (7) “And in thee shall
all the families of the earth be blessed.” “This word reaches
back to the divided ‘families’ lo:^, 20, 31) of the earth,
divided by their sins, as well as to the curse of 3:17 which
is now to be replaced by a blessing. A blessing so great that
its effect shall extend to ‘all the families of the earth’ can
be thought of only in connection with the promised Savior,
The word, therefore, is definitely Messianic and determines
that the Messiah is to emerge from the line of Abram.”
Quotes from Leupold (EG, I, 411, 412). (Note the
parallels of this sevenfold promise in Gen. 18:18, 22:18,
26:4, 28:14).
4. The Promised Land
V. l--“unto the land that I will sjow thee.’’ (Cf.
11:31, 12:J). Haley (ADB, 364): “At first the name of
the country ‘was nQt revealed to him. It is designated
simply as a ‘land that I will show thee’ (12 : 1 ) . Even if
the name ‘Canaa had bzen mentioned to Abraham at the
outset, it might s,till be true that he went forth ‘not know-
ing whither he went.’ For, in those days of slow transit,
imperfect intercommunication, and meager geographical
JS

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12 : 1-20
knowledge, the mere name of a country several hundred
miles distant would convey almost 17.0 idea of the country
itself. In our own time, even, of how many an emigrant
on his way to America it might well be said, ‘Ne knows not
whither he is going.”’ (Cf. Heb. 11:8). Again: “Gen.
11 : 3 1 merely shows that Abraham’s destination was known
to Moses writing at a later date.” The same is true of 12: J.
McClear (COTH, 28 : 3 1 ) : “This country, the future
home of the great nation destined to spring from Abram’s
loins, was in many respects eminently adapted for its
special mission in the history of the world. In extent,
indeed, it was but a narrow strip of country, but a little
larger than the six northern counties of England, being
nearly 180 miles in length, and 75 miles in breadth, and
having an area of about 13,600 English square miles.
Bounded on the west by the Mediterranean Sea, on the
north by the mountains of Lebanon, on the east by the
Syrian desert, on the south by the wilderness of Arabia, it
was situated at the meeting-point of the two continents of
Asia and Africa, ‘on the very outpost, on the extremest
western edge of the East.’ It was a secluded land.
A
wilderness encompassed it on the east and south, mountains
shut it in on the north, and the ‘Great Sea’ which washed
its western shore was the terror rather than the thorough-
fare of ancient nations. Unlike the coast of Europe, and
especially of Greece, it had no indentations, no winding
creeks, no deep havens, but one small port-that of Joppa
-with which to tempt the mariner from the west. But
while thus eminently adapted to be the ‘silent and retired
nursery of the Kingdom of God,’ it was in the very centre
of the activity of the ancient world, iiz the midst of the
izatioim, an?d the couiztries that were rou1i.d about it (Ezek.
J:J). On the south was the great empire of Egypt, on
the northeast the rising kingdom of Assyria. Neither of
these great nations could communicate with the other
without passing through Palestine, and so learning some-
59

12:2, -3 GENESIS,. ~ 1
thing of- its peculiar institutions and religion; and when
the fullness of time was come no country was better suited,
from its position at the estremest ,wr,ge,. of the. Eastern
World, to be the starting-point whence the glad tidings, of
Redemption might be proclaimed to all cpations. Moreover,
narrow as were its limits, and secluded. as was its- position,
it yet presented a greater variety of ,sydace,. scenqry and
temperature than is to be found in any:other part of the
world, and needed not to depend on other. countries for
anything that either the luxuries op, a&I-* wants of its
inhabitants required. Four broadly, miEked longitudinal
regions divided its surface. (1) First,-there was the low
plain of the western seacoast, broad toward the South, and
gradually narrowing toward the north," famous for the
Shephelah (the low country) with its. waving grain-fields,
and the vale of Sharon (level courttry), the garden of
Palestine. From this was an ascent to (2) d strip of tableland,
every part of which was more or less undulating, but
increasing in elevation from north to south, and broken
only by the plain of Jezreel or Esdraelon. To this succeeded
a rapid descent into (3) a deep fissure or valley,
through which the Jordan (the descetzder) , the only river
of importance in the country, rushes from its source at
the base of Hermon into the Dead Sea, the surface of
which is no less than 1316 feet below that of the Mediterranean.
Hence was a second ascent to (4) a strip of tableland
on the east similar to that on the west, and seeming
with its range of purple-tinted mountains to overhang
Jerusalem itself. Crowned by the forests and upland
pastures of Gilead and Bashan, this eastern table-land
gradually melted into the desert which rolled between it
and Mesopotamia. Thus within a very small space were
crowded the most diverse features of natural scenery, and
the most varied products. It was a good land, a land of
brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring owt
of valleys and hills, a land flowing with milk and honey
60
t -

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:3,’ 4
(Exo. 3:8, 17; Exo. 1,3:7; Deut. 8:7-9, 11:8-12; Josh. 5:6,
Jer. ll:J, Ezek. 20:6; 15; Num. 13:27). The low plains
yielded luxuriant crops of wheat and barley, of rye and
millet; on the table-lands with their equable and moderate
climate grew the vine, the olive, the fig, the almond, the
pomegranate; in the tropical neighborhood of Jericho
flourished the palm’tree and the balsam; while the noble
cedar waved on the mountains of Lebanon.” What a role
this laiid has played in the history of the world! aiid what
a role dt is still playiiig in our day!
5. Abram’s Respoizse to God’s Call (12:1-6).
V. ‘+--‘so Abram went, as Jehovah had spoken unto
him.” This statement gives us the key to Abram’s motiva-
tion throughout his entire life. When God spoke, Abram
acted accordingly (cf. Paul, Acts 22:10, 26:19). This
complete dedication to the will of God in all things, as
manifested by Abraham throughout his life, surely negates
the notion that he had become contaminated by the idola-
trous tendencies of his kinsmen. It was this very commit-
ment that caused his name to go down in the sacred
records as the Friend of God and the Father of the Faith-
ful (ha. 41:8, 2 Chron. 20:7, Jas. 2:21-24, John 8:39-40;
Rom. 4:4, 4:16-17; Gal. 3:5-9, Heb. 11:s-10, esp. John
15:14). This fact also tends to negate the view of some
commentators that two divine calls were necessary to move
Abram toward his ultimate destination. The record of
Abram’s life surely proves that it was not his custom to
delay obedience when God called, any longer than circum-
stances might necessitate. The Scripture record clearly
indicates that the place of his nativity was Ur, where he
lived with his father Terah, his brothers Nahor and Haran,
and where he married Sarai; that on the death of Haran, he
migrated with his father, his wife, and his nephew Lot
(son of Haran) to the geographical Haran in Upper
Mesopotamia (11:26-32) ; and that on the death of his
father he (Abram, now 75 years old) left Haran with
61

- - -
12:4, f GENES12 -;
Sarai and Lot and moved by stages p hechem and Bethel
into the land of Canaan (12: 1-9). ,We might compare
the language of Stephen (Acts 7:2-*4j: .here ,we read that
the call from “the God of glory” came to Abraham.“when
he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran”; that
“he came out of the land of the Chaldeans, and’dwelt in
Haran; and from thence, when his father was dead, God
removed him into this land, wherein ye,now dwell.” This
language would seem to indicate that ,he was under God’s
direction from the very first, and tipued to be under
this Divine direction throughout entire pilgrimage.
Murphy (MG, 264, 265): “Abranz~tolok. He is now the
leader of the little colony, as Terah wp, before his death.
Sarai, as well as Lot, is now named. ,The gainiizg they had
gained during the five years of residence in Haran. If
Jacob became comparatively rich in six years (Gen, 30:43) ,
so might Abram, with the divine blessing, in five. The
souls they bad gotteiz-the bondservants they had acquired.
Where there is a large stock of cattle, there must be a
corresponding number of servants to attend to them.
Abram and Lot entered the land of promise as men of
substance. They are in a postition of independence. The
Lord is realizing to Abram the blessing promised. They
start for the land of Kenaan, and at length arrive there.
This event is made as important as it ought to be in our
minds by the mode in which it is stated.”
However, it would be well, I think, for the student to
be acquainted with A. Gosman’s theory of the two divine
calls (CDHCG, 392, n.) as follows: “‘There is no dis-
crepancy between Moses and St. Stephen. Stephen’s design
was, when he pleaded before the Jewish Sanhedrin, to show
that God’s revelations were not limited to Jerusalem and
Judea, but that He had first spoken to the father of Abram
in an idolatrow land, Ur of the Chaldees. But Moses dwells
specially on Abram’s call from Haran, because Abram’s
obedience to that call was the proof of his faith (Words-
62

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:4, 5
worth),’ There is no improbability in the supposition that
the call was repeated, And this supposition would not only
reconcile the words of Stephen and Moses, but may explain
the fifth verse: ‘And they went forth to go into the land
of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan they came.’
Abram had left his home in obedience to the original call
of God, but had not reached the land in which he was to
dwell. Now, upon the second call, he ,not only sets forth,
but continues in his migrations until he reaches Canaan,
to which he was directed.”
The fact that stands out here, the one especially to be
remembered, is that Abrain went first from Ur to Haran,
diad theme to Caizaaiz. Special mention is made of the fact
that in both departures (first from Ur, and then from
Haran) Abram was accompanied by his wife Sarai and his
nephew Lot. In mentioning Sarai the foundation is laid
for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise (Covenant)
in the progressive revelation of the Messianic genealogy
and its ultimate consummation in Christ Jesus, Messiah
Himself, and (2) for other subsequent events of secular
history, as, for example, the never-ending conflict between
the progeny of Isaac and that of Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-14),,
a conflict that still rages today. In mentioning Lot, the
foundation is laid for the subsequent accounts of (1) the
theophany vouchsafed Abraham in the vicinity of Hebron,
(2) the subsequent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
(chs. 18, 19), and (3) the incestuous origin of the Moabites
and Ammonites (19:30-38).
We are told that men bound from Ur to Haran would
set out before the coming of the nine dry months “which
would strip every blade of grass from the land.” The
distance was some 600 miles. Some writers think that
Terah and his clan followed the west bank of the Euphrates.
Hence when they passed through Central Mesopotamia,
they would have seen the walls and towers of Babylon on
the other side of the river, including the famous eight-
63

12:4, 5 GENES1
storied ziggurat (cf. Gen. 10:10, 1.P:l-9). Other writers
think they followed the Tigris rat -than the Euphrates.
Thus Kraeling writes (BA, J7): ehh is said to have
started his renewed trek with a more distant objective in
mind-to go to the land of Canaan. . . .. But since he goes
to Haran, we may imagine him as taking the familiar
migration route back to the home dea: Perhaps his herds
had not crossed the Euphrates at all to the southern shore
of which Ur lay, for the river wajl certainly a formidable
obstacle. In returning he would have gone up the west side
of the Tigris. We may imagine him as passing mighty
Asshur, the capital of Assyria, and eighty miles beyond he
would have seen Nineveh across the river, a city of yet
lesser consequence, but destined to become the seat of an
empire that was to trample his descendants under its feet.
Leaving the Tigris, Terah would have taken the westward
track to Nisibis, and crossing the headwaters of the Khabur
River would soon have come to Haran on the upper
Balikb River, another tributary of the Euphrates.” Sig-
nificant archeological discoveries were made at Haran in
the nineteen-fifties under the direction of D. S. Rice.
From these discoveries it seems evident that the moon-
temple of Haran lay at the site occupied by the later great
mosque. Kraeling (ibid.) : “We here stand on the spot to
which Joshua refers when he says to the assembled tribes
that their fathers lived of old beyond the river and served
other gods (Josh. 24:2). First among these gods was Sin
of Haran. It was near here that the divine revelation
calling Abraham to a land of promise was given. Truly
at Haran one stands at the source of the River of Life.”
Payne (OHH, 36, 37): “Haran, Gen. 11:31-12:4.
Terah knew the destination was Canaan, 11:31; but he
settled in Haran, which was likewise a center for the
worship af Sin, and permeated with Hurrian customs,
where he died. This was a tragedy: lost faith? Relapse
into idolatry? God then called Abram again, this time to
64

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:4, 5
leave the father’s house’ as well, 12:1. It was to ‘the land
I will show thee (in detail)’; he knew it was Canaan (v.
5). With this call came promises: (I) personal election,
divine discrimination, for ‘salvation is of the Jews,’ John
4:22. God had previously associated Himself with groups,
Noah, and Shem (9:26), but with antecedent ethical dis-
tinction; Abram’s only plea was faith, Heb. 11:6. Elec-
tion proves God’s control of history and keeps the re-
cipient in humility. He promised Abram posterity, bless-
ing, and fame; and Abram’s whole subsequent life demon-
strated divine monergism; in his own power he had no
seed, no land, no property, 14:23. (2) universality, 12:3,
for all nations were to be blessed in him. He was an
example of faith, Gal. 3:8; and the Gentiles are blessed
with faithful Abraham, for Gen. 12:3 is not strictly as
Messianic a prophecy as 22:18, where his ‘seed’ is specified,
cf, Acts 3:25.” (1) The student will again note the dis-
agreement among eminent authorities as to whether Abram
was the recipient of one or two divine calls. There seems
to be no way of resolving this problem conclusively. Note
however, our own conclusion, and the reasons for it, in
preceding paragraphs. (2) The student must also keep
in mind that the history of the cities of Asshur and
Nineveh extends far back into that of Mesopotamia, as far
back indeed as the fourth millenium B.C. (Gen. 10:10-12).
This great antiquity is well confirmed by archaeology.
These cities did not attain pre-eminence, however, until the
rise of the Assyrian Empire. The First or Old Assyrian
kingdom had its beginning about 1750 B.C., soon after the
fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur.)
Lange (CDHCG, 393): “The calling of Abram: 1.
In its requisitions; 2. in its promises; 3. in its motives.
(a) The grace of God. The election of Abram. The
choice of God reflects itself in the dispositions of men,
the gifts of believers. As every people has its peculiar
disposition, so the race of Abram, and especially the
65

12

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12: J
some time, “being come with an army from the land of
the Chaldeans (Antiq. I, 1). It should be noted, too, that
Damascus was the native place of Eliezer, Abram’s household
steward, Gen. IJ:~). No doubt the caravan then
crossed the Jordan, where the first stopping-place was
Shechem, in the valley of the same name, lying between
Mounts Ebal and Gerizim.
V. J. “And into the land of Canaan, they came.”
(No
doubt a prolepsis, as in 11:31). This was a distance of
some 300 miles from Haran. Cf. v. 6--“And the Canaanite
was then in the land.” The territory originally occupied
by the Canaanites as a separate ethnic group is clearly de-
scribed in Gen. 10:19. A wider use of the term is also
encountered in Scripture and in early external sources as
including the inhabitants generally of the Syro-Palestianian
area. In its wider use also the terms “Canaanite” and
‘‘Amoriteyy tend to overlap directly. Thus Abram was
promised Canaan (12:5, 7) but this occupancy was de-
layed-in fact was never realized by Abraham personally-
because the inquity of the Amorites was not yet full.
Several inscriptions indicate clearly the contiguous use of
“Amorites” and “Canaanites” in Moses’ time; hence, “the
use of these terms as the distinguishing marks of different
literary hands is erroneous” (NBD, 184). It should be
noted, too, that Shechem was a Canaanite principality
under a Hivite ruler (Gen. 12:5, 6; 34:2, 30), but could
be called “Amorite” (Gen. 48:22), It seems that at the
time of the conquest of Abram’s descendants, the moun-
tainous land in the center, including the place of Shechem,
was occupied by the Amorites and other tribes, while the
coast of the Mediterranean and the west bank of the
Jordan was held by the Canaanites proper (cf. Josh. 5:1,
11 :3), The statement in v. 6 has been “fastened upon as
a proof of the late composition of this history, as implying
that though in Abram’s time the Canaanite was in the
land, he had ceased to have a place there in the writer’s

12:5 GENESIS ::> r‘
days. The objection is not founded:in historic truth; for
it appears from Gen. 34:30, 1 Ki. 9:20-21, Ezek. 16:3, that
the Canaanite continued to a certain extent in after ages
to occupy the land” (CECG, 131). Murphy suggests
three possible interpretations of this passage (MG, 265 -
266): “This simply implies that the land was not open
for Abram to enter upon immediate possession of it with-
out challenge: another was in posses&m; the sons of Kenaan
had already arrived and preoccupied the country. It also
intimates, or admits of, the supposition that there had been
previous inhabitants who may have been subjugated by the
invading Kenaanites. . , , It admits also of the supposition
that the Kenaanites afterward ceased to be its inhabitants.
Hence some have inferred that this could not have been
penned by Moses, as they were expelled after his death.
If this supposition were the necessary or the only one
implied in the form of expression, we should acquiesce in
the conclusion that this sentence came from one of the
prophets to whom the conservation, revision, and continua-
tion of the living oracles were committed. But we have
seen that two other presuppositions may be made that satisfy
the import of the passage. Moreover, the first of the three
accounts for the fact that Abram does not instantly enter
on possession, as there was an occupying tenant. And,
finally, the third supposition may fairly be, not that the
Kenaanites afterwards ceased, but that they should after-
ward cease to be in the land. This, then, as well as the
others, admits of Moses being the writer of this interesting
sentence.” To the present writer the best explanation of
this sentence is the simplest one: namely, that the writer
intends us to know that the Canaanite was @heady in the
land, Why try to give it some mysterious significance
when the simplest interpretation makes the most sense?
The inlplication could well be also that the Canaanite had
driven out the earlier inhabitants.
68

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:J
The Place of Shecheiiz, The Oak of Moreh
This was Abram’F; first stopping-place. The phrase
is perhaps a prolepsis, for the place where the city Shechem,
either built by or named after the Hivite prince (34:2)
was afterward situated, between Ebal and Gerizim. This
has been described as the only very beautiful spot in Central
Palestine. The oak of Moreh: probably not the oak liter-
ally, but rather the terebinth or turpentine tree; however,
the oak was a kind of generic name giiren to various kinds
of trees. Cf. Deut. ll:30-in all likelihood, the oak-grove
or terebinth-grove of Moreh. (Moreh, like Mamre, was
probably the name of the owner: cf. Gen. 13:18, 14:13).
It has been assumed by the critics that there was a sacred
grove here where pagan rites had been practised, probably
some aspect of the Cult of Fertility which prevailed gen-
erally among the inhabitants of the land. The phrase,
“place of Shechem,” is assumed to have been a “holy
place.” “Moreh” means literally teacher” or ccinstructor”:
hence, it may be conceded that oaks of instruction were in
the category of oaks of divination (Judg. 9:37). The
notion that sacred trees and groves were inhabited by
divinities and hence possessed oracular powers was wide-
spread in the cults of ancient pagan peoples. To this day,
we are told, the venerable cedars of Lebanon are tended
by Maronite priests. From these facts it is further assumed
by the critics that since this was the first place where
Abram built an altar unto Jehovah (v. 7), he selected
this particular “holy place” to worship his particular cult-
deity. This, of course, is conjecture. Lange (CDHCG,
391): “It is not probable that Abram would have fixed
his abode precisely in a grove, which according to heathen
notions had a sacred character as the residence of divining
priests. The religious significance of the place may have
arisen from the fact that Jacob buried the images brought
with him in his family, under the oak of Shechem (3J:4).
The idols, indeed, must not be thrown into sacred but into
69

12:6, 7 GENESIS : : 8
profane places (ha. 2:2O). But, perhaps, Jacob had re.gard
to the feelings of his family, (,and prepared for the
images, which, indeed, were not images belonging to any
system of idolatry, an honorable burial. At the time of
Joshua the place had a sacred character, and Joshua,‘ therefore,
erected here the monumental stone, commemorating
the solemn renewal of the law (Josh,, ch, 24). Thus they
became the oaks of the pillar at which the Shechemites
made Abimelech king (Judg. 19 : 6) .” Leupold (EG,
419): “But all suppoaitions, such as that the words ought
to be rendered ‘oracle-terebinth,’ or that we have here
indications of an animistic religion on the part of the
patriarchs, are guesses. It is just as possible that in days
of old some worshiper of Yahweh had under this oak admonished
and instructed the people.” The sum and substance
of the whole matter is clear, namely, that Abram
encamped by an ancient landmark, and there received a
second communication from God, and there built his first
altar in the Land of Promise to the God who had called him
to undertake this pilgrimage of faith.
The Theophaizy aizd the Altar, V. 7.
The patriarch
had left Ur of the Chaldees to set out on a trek, the destina-
tion of which God had not specified. The divine injunc-
tion was simply “unto the land that I will show thee”
(12:1, cf. Heb. 11:8, “he went out, not knowing whither
he went”). Now God appears to him and identifies this
Land of Promise specifically: “unto thy seed will I give
this land.” Note that God did not declare He would give
it to Abrain himself: as a matter of fact, Abraham died
without owning a foot of it, except the small spot he
purchased for a burial-place (Gen. 23:17-20, 25:9-10,
49:28-33). Lange (CDHCG, 391, 392) : “Abram’s faith
had developed itself thus far since he had entered Canaan,
and now the promise is given to him of the land of
Canaan, as. the possession of the promised seed. , . . Abram’s
grateful acknowledgment: the erection of an altar, and
70

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:7
the founding of an outward service of Jehovah, which as to
its first feature consisted in the calling upon his name
(cultus), and as to its second in the profession and acknowl-
edgement of his name. TlTUs also Jacob acted (33:20,
Josh. 24: 1, 26). Bethel, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba
are places of the same character (ix., places which were
consecrated by the patriarchs, and not as Knobel thinks,
whose consecration took place in later times, and then was ,
dated back to the period of the patriarchs). Abram’s
altars stood in the oaks of Moreh, and Mamre, in Bethel,
and upon Moriah. Abram, and the patriarchs generally, ,
served also the important purpose of preaching through
their lives repentance to the Canaanites, as Noah was such
a preacher for his time. For God leaves no race to perish
unwarned. Sodom had even a constant warning in the life
of Lot.” The diviiie deed to the Holy Land was here made
over to the seed of Abraham. “Abram himself was to
possess only a burial ground. Faith had to accept ‘things
not seen.’ ”
Let us not forget that the three elements of Biblical
religion are the altay, the sacrifice, aiid the priesthood.
Hence Abram did here, precisely what Noah had done on
coming out of the ark (Gen. 8:20), what undoubtedly
the patriarchs of the Messianic Line had done from the
time of Abel (Heb. 11:4; Gen. 4:1-5). Throughout the
Patriarchal Dispensation, the patriarch himself fulfilled
the three divine offices of prophet (revealer of the will of
God to his household), priest (mediator between his house-
hold and God), and king (the one who had complete
authority over his household). This threefold office was
expressed in the titles, Messiah, Christos, Christ, meaning
“The Anointed One.” In Old Testament times those leaders
inducted into these three ministries were formally set aside
for their service by the ceremony of anointing (Judg. 9: 8,
2 Sam. 2:4, 1 IG. 1:34; Exo. 28:41; 1 Ki. 19:16). The
holy anointing oil used in these ceremonies of induction
71 -

12:6, 7 GENESIS :2:
was typical of the gifts and graces.,of the Holy Spirit
(Matt. 3:16, 17; Acts 10:38, 4:26; kuke 4:18; Heb.,.l.:P,
ete.) . We see no reason for assuminga,tJiat-Abraham had
not maintained this indispensable institation of sacrifice
throughout his entire previous life; indispensable, that is,..in
the fact that from the beginning of revealed religion every
lamb slain on the Patriarchal and *Jewish-* altats was .by
divine ordination designed to point foxward in type to the
Lamb of God, our Passover, who would :be offered up for
the redemption of mankind (John 1~29~ 1 >%or.

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:7
of man. Abram felt impelled to give personal public
testimony to God’s inercy displayed in this appearance.
So he built an altar. . This statement is misconstrued by
criticism in its attempt to find as many distinctions as
possible between so-called sources. This passage, ascribed
to J, is said to mean that J never records instances of actual
sacrifices by the patriarchs. This is the argument from
silence, and it is inconclusive because the word for altar is
inizbeach, meaning ‘a place for slaughter.’ The manifest
intention of the author must be that ‘a place for slaughter’
was made in order to slaughter a victim. Altars becarrte
altars when the victinz is slaiiz. A mere altar of stones
would have been a formalistic gesture on Abram’s part-a
gesture like falling on one’s knees to pray but omitting
the prayer. The soul of the patriarchal religiom was sacrifice,
The critics find matters, which no one before their
iime dreamed of. The altar is said to be built ‘unto
Yahweh’ to emphasize the undeserved mercy of His
promise.” (Italics ours-C. The fact seems to be that
the critics are for the most part motivated by zeal to
destroy the integrity of the Bible and so to destroy its
influence on mankind.) (HSB, 22): “Abraham’s altar at
Shechem implies animal sacrifice which was common to all
Semites.”
Oiz to Bethel.
From the oak of Moreh Abram now
moved to the hill east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with
Bethel on the west and Ai on the east (localities that are
still recognized-the former as Beiten, the latter as Tell-
er-Rigmeh, the mount of the heap). Obviously Abram
was still predominantly nomadic and apparently was still
seeking better pasture land. It could well be also that
the “Canaanites” did not view with too kindly eyes the
appearance of this patriarch’s tents and floclcs and herds;
that Abram had neither the power nor the inclination to
resort, like Jacob, to “his sword and his bow” (Gen. 48:22,
Smith-Fields, OTH, 99). Abram was now on the heights
73

12:7, 8
GENESIS A ’ ‘ ‘
which skirt the Jordan, on the ngrthern border of I what
was later the kingdom of Judah, between Bethel and Ai,
Bethel was a place, adjacent to which was the town called
Luz at the first (Gen. 28:19). (Jacob gave this name to
the place twice (Gen. 28:19, 3j:l.y). Arch
firms the fact that the city was established
Bronze Age; hence we meet the name as existing as such
in Abram’s time. Bethel continued pfterward to be a
place hallowed by the presence of God, to which the people
resorted for counsel in the war with Benjamin (Judg.
20:18, 26, 31; xxi. 2), and in which Jeroboam, 1 Ki.
12:29, set up one of the golden calves), “Ai” meant literally
a “heap of stones” (cf. Josh,, chs. 7, 8). Here Abram
pitched his tent. This was his second stoppimg-place in
the Promised Land. (Tent: used for dwelling, Gen. 4:20,
9:21, 12:8, 13:18, 18:1, 13:l; Exo. 18:7; Num. 24:5, 6;
2 Sam. 20:1; Isa. 13:20, 38:12; Jer. 6:3. Women had
tents apart from men, Gen. 24:67, 31:33. Used for cattle,
2 Chron. 14:lj. Manufacture of, Acts 18:3.) Abram
cdled upon the mame of Yohueh. Murphy (MG, 267):
“On the hill east of this sacred ground [Bethel] Abram
built another altar, and called upon the name of the Lord.
Here we have the reappearance of an ancient custom,
instituted in the family of Adam after the birth of Enok
(Gen. 4:26), Abram addresses God by his proper name,
Jehovah, with an audible voice, in his assembled household.
This, then, was a continuation of the worship of Adam,
with additional light according to the progressive development
of the moral nature of man. But Abram has not
yet any settled abode in the land. He is only surveying
its several regions, and feeding his flocks as he finds an
opening. Hence he continues his journey southward.”
Leupold on Gen. 4:26 (EG, 227): “The ‘name’ here, as
usual, means the whole truth that God had revealed about
Himself. Since the name ‘Yahweh’ is attached to ‘name,’
this means that from days of old God was known in the
74

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12 : 8 , 9
capacity of Yahweh, or in the character of YaJmeh,
whether that word as such was known at this early date or
not. The thing that the name stood for was known. Men
do not first in the age of Abraham or Moses begin to
comprehend God’s faithfulness, unchangeableness, and
mercy. Since this calling out by the use of the name
definitely implies public worship, we have here the first
record of regular public worship. Private worship is pre-
supposed as preceding. The great importance of public
worship, both as a matter of personal necessity as well as
a matter of public confession, is beautifully set forth by
this brief record. This act bears eloquent testimony to
the courage of this group, who wanted to be known as
such whose hope was placed only in Yahweh. It is not
enough to say that ‘Yahweh’s religion began with Enosh.’
It began with Adam and developed into regular public
worship in three generations.” The significance of the
statment here, v. 8, is the fact of the use of the Name
Yahweh in worship, that is, to call out by the use of the
Name. (SIBG, 239) : “Abrain called om God, i.e., worshiped
him by prayer, by preaching to his family, and by offering
sacrifices for himself and them, ch. 18:19, 21:13. . . . It
is not uncommon for men to speak and act religiously in
one company or place, where religion is prevalent, or, if it
may be so called, fashionable, who yet totally lay it aside
in another place or company, where religion’ is less re-
garded, or perhaps altogether despised. Abram testifies
for God wherever he goes.” Again: “That Abram, before
this time, knew and worshiped God, there can be no doubt;
but this [Shecheml is the first altar erected by him; that
is, the first decided and public establishment of the worship
of Jehovah in his family. It is well known, that young
Christians, who worship God in private, often find con-
siderable difficulty in commencing family worship. Let
them remember Abram’s faith, Abram’s altar, and Abram’s
blessing, and take courage.”
75

12:lO-20 GENESIS
7. The Roztnd Trip to Egypt (I 2: 10-20)
Literally, Abraham pulled up stdes and kept on moving
toward the south, that is toward the Negeb. Evidently
the hill area adjacent to Bethel, though it may have protected
him somewhat from the animosity of his neighbors
(who surely did not look with too friendly an eye on this
nomadic intruder) furnished scanty pasturage for his
cattle. He therefore went on southward, that is, toward
the Negeb (“dry land”). The Negeb is the Palestinian
region which extends south from Hebron. It is a more or
less arid region in parts of which isolated flocks may be
tended, as far south at least as Beersheba. The terrain and
character of the Negeb was such that Judea was almost
never invaded from the South through this area. When
Israel sought to enter the Promised Land the procession was
repulsed by this formidable barrier and its inhabitants
(Deut. 1:42-46). Of course it may have been less desiccated
in the days of the patriarchs. Frequently in Scripture
the word is ‘used merely to indicate direction, south. (The
reference to the Negeb here and elsewhere in Genesis takes
on ‘great significance since Dr. Nelson Glueck’s archaeological
discoveries which make it clear that tlie regiQn was
occupied from 2 100- 1800 B.C., the period of Abraham.
Incidentally; it is now believed by some archaeologists that
Abraham. and the Babylonian king Hammurabi were
relatively contemporary. See Glueck’s fascinating book,
Rivers in thc Desert, RQ in our Bibliographical Abbreviations.)
The‘ route taken, from the Beersheba region was
probably by “the way of Shur,” an area in the northwest
part of the-isthmus of Sinai, south uf the Mediterranean
coastline and “the way of the land of the Philistines” (Gen.
16:7, 25:18; 1 Exo. . $3:17,-18, 15:22; 1 Sam. 15:7, 27:8).
Th.ere m-oje a famine i~ the Land of Promise, so Abram
pressed on to the south. The Land of Promise, we are
told, is watered by rain periodically, but seasons of drought
occur in which the growth of vegetation is arrested and
76

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:lO-20
thus famine is brought on. Because the fertility of her
soil was guaranteed by the annual inundation of the Nile,
Egypt as a rule enjoyed protection from drought; hence it
was customary for peoples of Syria and Palestine to seek
refuge there in times of famine in their own lands, as did
Jacob later. Thus it will be noted that insofar as the
Promised Land is considered, it was literally true that
Abram simply “passed through the land” (v. 6). The
first journey was apparently one of exploration and it
seems to have been rapidly consummated and then termi-
nated in a brief sojourn in Egypt.
Abram in Egypt: The Problem of Sarai’s Age
Abram’s wife, Sarai, is now thrust forward into what
was an unenviable situation, and surely not one of her own
making. Abram testified to her attractiveness: “thou art
a fair woman to look upon” (v. 1 1) and the princes of
Pharaoh on seeing her beauty “praised her to Pharaoh”
(vv. 14, 1j). The statement Sarai was so fair as to attract
the attention of Pharaoh, even to the peril of her husband’s
life (12:1l, IS) is said by the critics to be incompatible
with 12:4 (cf. 17:17), according to which she was at that
time upward of sixty-five years old. It is said to be still
more incongruous that she should have attracted Abimelech
when she was more than ninety years old (20:2’-7, 7:17).
Green (UBG, 167) : “The only point of any consequence
in this discussion is not what modern critics may think of
the probability or possibility of what is here narrated, but
whether the sacred historian credited it. On the hypothesis
of the critics R (redactor) believed it and recorded it.
What possible ground can they have for assuming that J
and E had less faith than R in what is here told-of the
marvelous beauty and attractiveness of the ancestress of
the nation? If the entire narrative could be put together
by R, and related by him with no suspicion of discord,
the same thing could just as well have been done by one
original writer. It may be added, if it will in any measure
77

12 : 10-20 GENESIS
relieve the minds of doubting critics, that Abimelech is
not said to have been taken with Sarah’s beauty. He may
have thought an alliance with ‘a mighty prince’ like Abraham
(23 : 6) desirable, even if Sarah’s personal charms were
not what they had once been. And when Abraham lived
to an age of one hundred and seventy-five, who can say
how well a lady of ninety may have borne her years?”
It has been suggested that Sarai’s complexion, coming from
a mountainous country, was no doubt fresh and fair as
compared with the faces of Egyptian women, which, as
the monuments show, were dark-brown or copper-colored
(CECG, 132). This suggestion surely has merit.
Abrant in Egypt: His Attejn pted Deceptioii (vv.
10-20) *
Leupold (EG, 421, 422) : “Now follows an episode
that is less attractive. Abram does not appear to good ad-
vantage in it. With impartial truth Moses records what
Abram did. If the account remains entirely objective
without the addition of a subjective opinion or estimate of
the ethical value of Abram’s conduct, this can readily be
seen to be offset by the fact that the narrative as such in
its unvarnished truth so plainly sets forth the unworthy
sentiments’ that animated the patriarch, that the sympa-
hetic reader is almost made to blush for the thing done by
the m3n of God. The charge of the critics is decidely
unfair when they say: ‘There is no suggestion that either
the untruthfulness or the selfish cowardice of the request
[of AbramJ ‘was severely reprobated by the ethical code
to which the narxative appealed.’ Prochsch sees the situa-
tion more nearly as it actually is when he asserts: ‘It is
quite impossible here not to notice the narrator’s sarcasm,’
and adds that this step that Abram took ‘is most sharply
condemned’ by the writer. Comparing chapters twenty
and twenty-six, we find two situations that constitute a
close parallel to the one under consideration. Strange as
such recurrences may strike us, it should be remembered
78

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12 : 10-20
that life often brings us into situations that are practically
duplicates of what transpired at an earlier date; and he
that marvels that a patriarch sinned a second time after
a definite rebuke, let him remember how often he himself
may repeat a sin for which a stern admonition had been
addressed to him. To say this must have been ‘a very
popular story in ancient Israel’ hardly does justice to the
facts of the case. Why should Isiael have deemed the
failings of its patriarchs material for ‘popular’ stories? The
recording of three such instances is explicable only on the
score of the strict impartiality of the author.” See the
parallel stories of Abram and Abimelech (ch. 20) and of
Isaac and Abimelech (ch. 26). It must be understood
that the Bible is a very realistic book: it pictures life just
as nzeu lived if; it does iiot turiz away froin the truth to
cover u,p fhe weaknesses of fJ9e heroes of the faith. It
deals WitJ9 them realistically as it deals with all iizeiz real-
istically, iii the fact that it finds thenz in sin (as they
kizow tJ9ey aye if they will but be holiest with themselves
aizd with God), but at the same time offers the only possi-
ble remedy, the Atonenzeizt, God’s Covering of Grace (John
1:29, 1 John 1:7-10, Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:7, Heb. 9:12).
Diviize Justice required the Atoizevzent, and Divine Love
provided it (John 3:16). It should be izoted that the
severe reproof which God administered to those Practisiizg
deceptioiz, OIZ all these occasioiis, was adnziiiistered through
the iizstrunzeiitality of those who had been made the
victim of their deception. In each case, too, the reproof
was accoiizpaizied with nzanif estatioizs of great mercy and
benevoleizce.
According to a previous understanding with Sarai,
Abram palmed her off on the king of Egypt as his sister.
This, of course, was a half-truth and a half-lie (20: 12),
which makes the incident more interesting and more com-
plex ethically. Some authors have tried to minimize
the deception by appeals to customs. Speiser, for example,
79 I

12 : 10-20 GENESIS
would have us know that, according to the inscriptions, in
the Hurrian culture of the time men were accustomed to
confer special status on their wives by adopting them as
sisters. This, we are told, would have made Sarai eligible
for sistership status in Haran which was predominantly
a Hurrian city; and because this relationship was for Sarai
a matter of prestige, Abram would have stressed it in introducing
her to Pharaoh (ABG, 91-94). This notion is
surely “out of tune” completely with the Genesis account:
it is completely contrary to the motive explicitly attributed
to Abram and Sarai in that account. Speiser’s attempted
explanation of the motives involved in Abram’s deception
makes it to be no deception at all. He writes: “Why was
tradition so interested in the matter, enough to dwell on it
repeatedly. We know now that the wife-sister position
was a mark of cherished social standing. This kind of
background would be an implicit guarantee of the purity
of the wife’s descendants. The ultimate purpose of the
biblical genealogies was to establish the superior strain of
the line through which the biblical way of life was transmitted
from generation to generation. In other words, the
integrity of the mission was to be safeguarded in transmission,
the purity of the content protected by the quality
of the container. This is why the antecedents of the wife
-the mother of the next generation-in the formative
early stages 9 were of particular significance. Hence, too,
all such notices would be obligatory entries in the pertinenlt
records” (ibid., 94). In opposition to this view, we may
ask two questions: (I) What evidence have we that this
special sister-wife status over in Haran was recognized,
or even known, down in Egypt? (2) If the Old Testament
writers were seeking to p,rotect the moral integrity of
the mothers of each succeeding generation, why do they
present the deception practised by Abram and Sarai as
a deception jure and simple, and as motivated by selfisbness.
It strikes this writer that from the viewpoint tak.en
80

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:lO-20
by Dr. Speiser, the Genesis accounts of these deceptions
would have been omitted from the history.
See JB (p. 29, n.): Here we have another attempt to
tc
explain away” Abram’s defection, and this is equally
without any positive evidence to support it. We read:
“The purpose of this narrative (the same theme recurs in
ch. 20 where Sarai figures again, and in 26:1-11, where the
story is told of Rebekah) is to cornmeinorate the beauty of
the ancestress of the race, the astuteness of its patriarch, the
protection that God afforded them. The story reflects
a stage of moral development when a lie was still con-
sidered lawful under certain circumstances and when the
husband’s life meant more than his wife’s honor. God was
leading man to an appreciation of the moral law but this
appreciation was gradual.’’ It will be noted that this
writer puts the emphasis on the importance of the father,
whereas Speiser puts it on the moral integrity of the
mother. These views are hardly reconcilable.
Why, them, do we not allow the Bible to say what it
ineaia aiad to mean what it says? Let us get away from
the nit-picking propensities of the c‘intellectual’’ who fre-
quently cannot see the forest for the trees. Let us take
a look at the other side-the realistic side-of the problem.
For example (HSB, 22, n.): “God’s will, done God’s way,
never lacks for God’s blessing. Say you are iizy sister.
Here Abraham did not tell the truth. Selfishness overtook
this man of faith. Fear for his own life made him forget
what consequences his deceit would bring for Sarah and
others. Although Abraham was a man of faith he was
not a perfect man. This incident serves to illustrate the
fact that the end does not justify the means. The means
and the end must both be right.” (SIB, 232) : “Sarai was
his sister in some sense . . , but it was not in that sense,
but in the common acceptation of the words, sister and
brother, they sinfully wished the Egyptians to understand
them.” Jamieson (CECG, 132) : “On reaching the con-
81

12 : 10-20 GENESIS
fines of Egypt, which was the greatest primeval kingdom
in the world, Abram began to feel uneasy. Increasing
signs of civilization, grandeur, and power, met his eye on
every side; and as the immigration of so numerous a tribe
as his from the neighboring desert would certainly arrest
public attention, the prospect of encounteging the author-
ities of Egypt, so different from the simple nomads of
Asia, to whom his experience had hitherto been limited,
filled him with awe. But all other anxieties were forgotten
and absorbed in one cause of alarm. . . . He entertained
a bad opinion of the morals and manners of the country;
and anticipating that Sarai, whose style of beauty was far
superior to that of the Egyptian women, might captivate
some proud noble, who would try by any means to obtain
possession of her, Abram became apprehensive of his life.
The idea so completely unnerved him that his fortitude and
faith alike gave way; and he formed an artful plan, which,
while it would retain his wife beside him, would, he hoped,
by leading to betrothal and other negotiations connected
with the dowry, put off the evil day. The counsel of
Abram to Sarai was true in words: but it was a deception,
intended to give an impression that she was no more than
his sister. His conduct was culpable and inconsistent with
his character as a servant of God; it showed a reliance on
worldly policy more than a trust in the, promise; and he
not only sinned himself, but tempted Sarah to sin also.”
Leupold (EG, 424): “Abram knows how little the rights
of foreigners were respected in olden times. He also knows
how beautiful women would be sought out when they
came to a foreign land. He also understands that marriage
was respected sufficiently that men felt they must dispose
of the husband before they could take his wife. Egyptian
parallels prove that men had no hesitation about commit-
ting murder in order to secure their object. There was
nothing beside the point in the estimate that he makes of
the situation except the morals of the patriarch. Though
82

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:lO-ZO
20: 12 indicates that the literal truth was being told, there
-is yet the possibiliy of telling it with the intent to deceive;
and so it becomes a lie. In addition, there is something
cowardly and mean about expecting Sarai to encounter the
hazards in order that Abram might avoid danger. The
heroic is notably absent in this request.” In reply to the
question as to how Sarai could be deemed beautiful at the
age of sixty-five, this author writes’ (ibid., 424) : “It must
be remembered that according to the limits of longevity of
those times she was only middle-aged. Middle-aged women
may have retained their beauty, especially if they have not
borne many children. On Pharaoh’s part the taking of a
woman into his harem may be largely a political expedient
to enhance his own influence.” Lange (CDHCG, 392):
“It must be observed that by the side of the Hamitic
women in Egypt and Canaan, Semitic women, even when
advanced in years, would be admired as beautiful. Abram
desired that Sarah should say that she was his sister, lest
he should be killed. If she was regarded as his wife, an
Egyptian could only obtain her when he had murdered
her husband and possessor; but if she was his sister, then
there was a hope that she might be won from her brother
by kindly means. The declaration was not false (20: 12),
but it was not the whole truth.” Lange goes on to say,
trying to justify what Abram did in this case, that the
patriarch’s policy to report that Sarai was his sister was
determined at an early period in their migrations, but was
first brought into use in his dealing with Pharaoh. (To
the present writer, this seems to be an unjuistified assump-
tion and wholly contrary to the tenor of 12:lI.) He
continues as follows: “Abram’s venture was not from laxity
as to the sanctity of marriage, or as to his duty to protect
his wife; it was from a presumptuous confidence in the
wonderful assistance of God. It was excused through the
great necessity of the time, his defenceless state among
strangers, the customary lawlessness of those in power, and
83
’

12:lO-20 GENESIS
as to the relations of the sexes. Therefore Jehovah pre-
served him from disgrace, although he did not spare him
personal anxiety, and the moral rebuke from a heathen.
It is only in Christ, that with the broad view of faith, the
knowledge of its moral human measures and limitations is
from the beginning perfect. In the yet imperfect, but
growing faith, the word is true, ‘The children of this world
are wiser in their generation than the children of light.’
As a mere matter of prudence, Abram appeared to act
prudently. He told no untruth, although he did not tell
the whole truth. His word was, at all events, of doubtful
import, and therefore, through his anxious forecast, was
morally hazardous. But the necessity of the time, the
difficulty of his position, and his confidence that God
would make his relations clear at the proper time, serve to
excuse it. It was intended to effect a final deception: his
God would unloose the knot. In his faith Abram was a
blameless type of believers, but not in his application of
his faith to the moral problems of life. Still, even in this
regard, he unfolds more and more his heroic greatness. We
must distinguish clearly between a momentary, fanatical,
exaggerated confidence in’ God, and the tempting of God
with a selfish purpose.” It strikes the present writer that
there is much in the foregoing apologetic that is not in
harmony with’ the Genesis account. Is it not the plain
fact that Abram, in concealing the whole truth, did
actually-by inplication which cannot be ignored-tell an
untruth? Oftentimes the most destructive lies are perpe-
trated by concealing that part of the truth which has the
most bearing on the moral situation involved. We are
reminded of the well-known couplet:
“A lie that is wholly a lie
Can be met and fought outright,
But a lie that is half a lie
Is a harder matter to fight.”
84

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:lO-20
There are situations in which a person can lie simply by
keeping silent. Cf. Smith-Fields (OTH, 99) : “It is enough
here to observe that the mighty kingdom of the Pharaohs
had already been long established in Lower Egypt. In this
crisis the faith of Abram failed. To protect his wife from
the license of a despot, he stooped to that mean form of
deceit, which is true in word but false in fact. The trick
defeated itself. Sarai, as an unmarried woman, was taken
to the harem of the king, who heaped wealth and honors
upon Abram,” Whitelaw (PCG, 18 8) comments on
Abram’s introduction of Sarai to Pharaoh as his ‘sister’ as
follows: “A half truth (20:12) but a whole falsehood.
The usual apologies, that he did not fabricate but did
‘cautiously conceal the truth,’ that perhaps he was acting
in obedience to a Divine impulse, that he dissembled in
order to protect his wife’s chastity, are not satisfactory.
On the other hand, Abram must not be judged by the
light of New Testament revelation. It is not necessary for
a Christian in every situation of life to tell all the truth,
especially when its part suppression involves no deception,
and is indispensable for self-preservation; and Abram may
have deemed it legitimate as a means of securing both his
own life and Sarah’s honor, though how he was to shield
his wife in the peculiar circumstances it is difficult to see,
Rosenmuller suggests that he knew the preliminary cere-
monies to marriage required a considerable time, and
counted upon being able to leave Egypt before any injury
was done to Sarah. The only objection to this is that the
historian represents him as being less solicitous about the
preservation of his wife’s chastity than about the conserva-
tion of his own life. . . . ‘No defence can be offered for
a man who, merely through dread of danger to himself,
tells a lie, risks his wife’s chastity, puts temptation in the
way of his neighbors, and betrays the charge to which the
Divine favor had summoned him’ (Dykes) .” The plain
fact is that should anyone take Sarah into his harem on the
81

12 : 10-20 GENESIS
suppositibn that she was his siter, Abram as the honored
brother would be given most respectful treatment. Hence,
as Leupold puts it (EG, 425): “Fully aware of the fact
that such a course may involve the sacrifice of Sarai’s
honor in order that he himself might fare well, he never-
theless asks Sarai to make the sacrifice.. Abram never
sank lower, as far as we know, than when he made this
request. Sarai’s acquiesence, however, seems to grow out
of the idea that there actually is no other safe course to
follow. She was as sadly deficient in faith as he himself
on this occasion.” We repeat:
t ,
The Bible is the most realistic book ever given to
mankind. It never turns away fronz the trufh to
cover up the fazblts of the heroes of the faith. Tf
deals with mdiz as he is, and as he knofws that be is, if
he will but be hofgest with himself and with God. It
finds him iiz sin, aizd proffers the only remedy fw it.
As. A, Gosman puts it (CDHCG, 394, n.): “We are not
ta be harsh or censorious in our judgments upon the acts
of these eminent saints. But neither are we called upon
d their acts,’. . . it is well to bear in mind that
e ture records, these acts without expressing distinctly
any moral judgment upon them. It impliedly
~ copdemns.,: The ripture, however, contains the great
principles of “moral. truth and duty, and then mes
leaves the reader to .draw the inference as to cir a1
‘quality of,.the act which< it records. And its faithfulness
ig not coffcealing ,what may be of quest&able morality,
:in the. lives of ,the greatest saints shows the honesty and
accuracy of the historian.’ Wordsworth says well: ‘The
rengthen our faith in the
Did Pharaoh, enter. into marital relations with Sarai?
ere is-nothing in the records to indicate that he did;
as a matter of fact, the customary prerequisites to any kind
86

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:10-20
of royal marriage in the ancient world involved consider-
able time. As Simpson writes (IBG, 581) : “Had the
author intended such a representation he would have stated
the fact explicitly by saying, e.g., at the end of verse 15,
that Pharaoh lay with her.” We may surely conclude that
precisely what happened in the case of Rebekah (26:8-11)
happened in the similar instances in which Abram and
Sarai were involved, namely, that the woman was divinely
protected against physical coition. It is interesting to
note, too, that in each case the royal victim of patriarchal
duplicity protested in almost the same language, “What is
this than thou hast done unto me?” (12:18, 20:9, 26:lO).
11% a word, the inan of God was rebuked, and that rightly,
by the ma??, of the world. Cf. Bowie (IBG, 581) : “In this
unvarnished story there are several points that are signifi-
cant, Conspicuous-to begin with-is the fact that here,
as elsewhere, the O.T. is written with an unhesitating real-
ism. The faults even of its greatest figures are not dis-
guised. What Abraham is described as having done when
he went into Egypt would throw discredit on any ’man.
Being afraid that the Egyptians would covet Sarah, and
thinking that if they knew she was tied to him as her
husband they would kill him to get possession of her, he
persuaded Sarah to pose as his unmarried sister; and as such
she was taken to the house of Pharaoh. In the climax of
the story the Egyptian stands in a much better light-than
Abraham, the man of the covenant; for’ he denounced
indignantly the lie that Abraham had told him, gave Sarah
back to him, and let him go out of the country with the
rich possessions which had been bestowed upon him when
Sarah was taken.”
“What is this that thou hast done unto‘me?” he de-
manded of Abram when he learned of the latter’s deception.
Thus, as F. W. Robertson has written (NG, 53) : “The
man of God was rebuked by the man of the world: a thing
singularly humiliating. It is common to find men of the
87

12: 10-20 GENESIS
world whose honor and integrity are a shame to every
Christian; and common enough to find men of religious
feeling and aspiration, of whom that same world is compelled
to say that whenever they are tried in business there
is always a something found wanting. e , . Morality is not
religion; but unless religion is grafted on morality, religion
is worth nothing.”
“Be sure your sin will find you out” is the solemn
warning of Scripture as voiced by Moses in the days of old.
If it does not find you out here, it will surely do so in the
Great Judgment (1 Tim. j:24-25, Matt. 16:27, Acts
17:30-31, Rom. 2:4-6, Rev. 20:12). God saw to it that
Abram’s sin found him out, and that through the instrumentality
of his victim (precisely as in the two other
similar incidents) , “And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and
his house.” Murphy (MG, 271, 272): “The mode of
divine interference is suited to have the desired effect on
the parties concerned. As Pharaoh is punished, we conclude
he was guiltx in the eye of heaven in this matter.
He committed a breach of hospitality by invading the
private abode of the ,stranger. He further infringed the
lay of equity between man and man in the most tender
point, by abstracting,, if not with violence, at least with
a show of arbitrary power which could not be resisted, a
female, whether -
1
or wife, from the home of her
naSural guardian without the con
of ruthless- self,will,. also., is ,often
bey a blamable. ii7atten.tion to the character or position of
him who “is wronged. So it was with Pharaoh. Abram
was a mqn of blameless life and inoffensive manners. He
, the chosen and special servant of the Most
haraoh, hoprever, does not condescend to
;stranger is whom he is about to wrong;
and is thus unwittingly involved in an aggravated crime.
But the hand of the Almighty brings even tyrants to their
88

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:10-20
senses. , . , The princes of Pharaoh were accomplices in
his crime (v. IJ), and his domestics were concurring with
him in carrying it into effect, But even apart from any
positive consent or connivance in a particular act, men,
otherwise culpable, are brought into trouble in this world
by the faults of those with whom they are associated. On
accwnt of Sarai: Pharaoh was made aware of the cause of
the plagues or strokes with which he was now visited.”
Fully cognizant now of the fact that the ccplagues’y
he and his household were suffering were divin,e visitations
for a wrong he had committed, we can well suppose, I
think, that this Egyptian king was motivated in large
part by sheer superstitious fear of the gods or god whose
will he had violated; hence, he was willing to do most any-
thing he could to get this foreigner and his caravan out
of Egypt posthaste, even providing him with an escort to
see that he left the country unharmed. He actually sent
Abram out with all the wealth the latter had acquired,
some of it probably as the king’s own purchase price for
the projected admission of Sarai into his harem. (Bride
purchase is a custom as old as the history of the race itself.)
Pharaoh consoled himself with upbraiding Abram for the
latter’s deceit, and so permitted the incident to be termin-
ated without any further unpleasantness. Abram, we are
told, left Egypt, now “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in
gold” (13:2). Traveling back through the south of Pales-
tine (the Negeb) Abram finally reached his old camping-
ground between Bethel and Ai, “unto the place of the altar,
which he had made there at the first.” “And there Abram
called on the name of Jehovah,” that is, re-established the
worship of the living and true God. Murphy suggests that
by this experience in Egypt, the patriarch, “thus reproved
through the mouth of Pharaoh, will be less hasty in
abandoning the land of promise, and betaking himself to
carnal resources” (MG, 272).
89

12:lO-20 GENESIS
Recapihdation: Leaving Haran, Abram journeyed
through Shechem (12:6), Bethel (8), southward . (9),
Egypt (lo), back to the Negeb (13:1), and to Bethel
(13:3); but he seems not to have settled down until he
reached Hebron ( 13 : 18). Here he remained (13 : 18,
14:13, 18:1), through the birth of Ishmael at 86 (16:16),
and the conception of Isaac at 99 (17:l). The most
significant event of this period, and indeed of his whole
life, was the revelation of the Abrahamic covenant (ch.
15) and its confirmation (ch. 17), the means by which
he and his fleshly seed were reconciled to God.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART TWENTY -SIX
Where were the earliest civilizations located and why?
What does the word “Mesopotamia” mean?
What especially enhanced the development of civilization
in Mesopotamia?
Where did Semitic and Indo-European cultures flourish
respectively?
Where did’\ the Akkadians and Sumerians flourish
geographically?
What was the Akkadian Empire and who established
it ?
Who were the Amorites? In what city especially have
archaeologists discovered their cultural remains?
Who was their greatest king and in what city did he
reign?
State the chief facts of the early history of Ur.
State the main facts of the later history of Ur.
Who were the Hurrians? What is the best known
site of their cultural remains?
themselves in the Near East?
city and where was it located?
90
they establish
What was their chief

14.
1 Y.
16,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2J.
2 6.
27.
28.
29.
3 0.
THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:10-20
What economic development enhanced the power and
prosperity of the Hittites?
Who were the Hyksos? When did they enter Palestine
and why?
State the important facts about the Third Dynasty
of Ur.
Name the centers of archaeological excavation the
remains of which are relevant to‘ the culture of the
Patriarchal Age.
What light does Stephen’s account in Acts 7:2-3
throw on the Call of Abram?
For what purpose in particular are the “generations
of Terah” introduced in Genesis?
In what sense was the Call of Abram a turning-point
in human history?
In what sense was it a turning-point in Messianic
history?
Why do we take the view that Abram was not Terah’s
eldest son?
What two basic features of the Abrahamic Promise
occur in all the statements of it in Genesis?
In what three ways was the Divine Promise in re
Abram’s seed fulfilled? Who was his eminevtt seed?
Summarize Murphy’s eloquent treatment of the sequence
of the earthly and the heavenly.
How was this sequence fulfilled in the life of
Abraham?
Why do we say that the Abrahamic Covenant was
the Covenant of Promise?
Who was the Child of Promise and why so called?
Why do many commentators assume that two divine
calls were made to Abram?
Is it possible to harmonize Abram’s many manifestations
of faith in God with the notion that he had
yielded to the religious apostasy which seems to have
characterized his kinsmen?
91

3’1.
3 2.
33.
3 4.
3 5.
3 6.
3 7.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
4J.
46.
47.
What was the first lap of’ %ram’s pilgrimage OF
faith? I
How does Gosman reconcile the’ apparent ’ discrepancy
between Moses and Stephen concerning the Call of
Abram? * I I
Why are Sarai and Lot both mentiohedLin7.the’ :accounts
of Abram’s departure from Ur and. his departure
from Haran? 1’ * 1 _, * ’ > a I ,*
What was the distance from Urs to-Hakan? .How was
Haran associated in Biblical histoqf: &h ’ Abram’s
. .
various kinsmen? Where did Te’rali.die?-* 2
State again the three fulfillments - of th6 Abrahamic
Promise concerning Abraham’s seed. .
Trace Abram’s route from Haran- to Lis first stoppingplace
at Shechem. What was the distance “involved?
How old was Abram when he left Haran?
How does the ancient city of Damascus figure in the
story of the life of Abraham?
Explain the different uses of the word “Canaanite”
in the Old Testament.
What suggested interpretations have we of the statement,
“And the Canaanite was then in the land”?
What is the simplest explanation of this statement?
Why is it assumed that “the place of Shechem” is
descriptive of a pagan “holy place”? Have we any
reason for assuming that Abram himself participated
in pagan rites?
Are we justified in assuming that we have in “the oak
of Moreh” indications of primitive animism?
What is the significance of God’s word to Abram in
12:7?
What was Abram’s second stopping-place?
At what places were Abram’s altars erected?
What are the three elements of Biblical religion?
Explain the statement that “altars become altars only
when a victim is slain.”
92

49.
J 0,
Jl,
J3.
J 4,
IF,
J 6.
58,
59,
GO.
61,
62.
63,
64.
65.
66.
67,
THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH 12:10-20
What institution: qvas the very ccsouI” of Patriarchal
religion?
What typical meaning did sacrifice have under the
Patriarchal and Jewish Dispensations?
Name in their proper sequence the three Dispensations
of. divine .grace.
What was the extent of each?
What epecific changes determined the changes of
Dispensations also?
In what .other instances does Bethel figure in Old
Testament history?
Explain the full meaning of the statement that Abram
“called upon the name of Jehovah.”
What was the Negeb? The Way of Shur?
What caused Abram to journey into Egypt?
What fact made Egypt a ccbreadbasket” in times of
famine in Syria and Palestine?
In the light of Gen. 17:17 how old was Sarai when
Abram entered Egypt?
How harmonize Sarah’s age with her alleged attrac-
tiveness?
What deception did Abram perpetrate on Pharaoh?
What was the actual relationship of Sarai to Abram?
What according to the Genesis account motivated
Abram’s attempted deception in this case?
What explanation of Abram’s deception is suggested
by Speiser?
What explanation is suggested in the Jerusdew Bible?
How does Jamieson explain it?
What other cases of the same kind of deception are
related in Genesis?
In what sense was Abram’s introduction of Sarai to
Pharaoh a half-truth but a whole lie at the same time?
In what sense is the Bible completely realistic? How
is this illustrated by the report of Abram’s behavior
toward Pharaoh? , .,
93

12:lO-20
68. What evidence do
into marital relations with Sarai?
haraoh did not enter
69. Discuss F. W. Robertson’s stathmerit that in this ca;p
the man of God was rebuked by the man of the
world, and the parallels he draws f
70. Through whose instrumentality di
sin to “find him out”?
1 L * ! ,
71. In what ways did God deal out’ justice“to Pharaoh
also?
^ > , \ , % L ,
< I *
72. How did Pharaoh deal with Abta$? : ‘ -
73. To what place in Palestine did-]Abra&
74. Give the “recap” of Abram’s‘
Egypt and back into the Land of
75. What statement in the Abrahamic Promise .shows that
God did not abandon the “other‘ families of’ the earth”
when he called out Abram’s seed, but was in fact
making provision ultimately for their spiritual wel-
fare also?
94

PART TWENTY-SEVEN
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
ABRAHAM AND LOT
(Gen,, chs. 13, 14)
1. The Biblical Account (ch. 13)
And Abrain weiit up out of Egypt, he, and his wife,
aiid all that he hnd, aiid Lot witb hiin, into the South. 2
And Abraiiz bas very qpich in cattle, in silver, aiid in gold.
3 And he weiit oii his jouriieys frow the Sou,th even to
Beth-el, uiito the place where his teiit had been at the be-
giniziiig, between Fcih-el and Ai, 4 uiito the place of the
altar, which he had,inade there at the first: aid there
Abram called on the name of Jehovah. J And Lot also, who
went with Abranz, bad flocks, and herds, and tents. 6. Aiid
the laid was not able to bear them, that they might dwell
together: foY their substance was great, so that they could
iiot dwell together. 7 Aiid there was a strife between the
berdsnzen of Abrain’s cattle aiid the herdsinen of Lot’s
cattle: and the Caizaanite and Perizzite dwelt then in the
land. 8 And Abranz said uiito Lot, Let there be no strife,
I pray thee, between ine aiid thee, and between nzy herds-
men and thy herdsinen; for we are brethren. 9 Is Izot the
whole land before thee? separate thyself, I Pray thee, froin
me: if thou wilt take the left haiid, then I will go to the
right; or if thou take the right haiid, then I will go to
the left. 10 Aiid Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the
Plain of the Jordaii, that it was well watered everywhere,
before JeJ3ouah destroyed Sodonz and Gonzorrab, like the
garden ,of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest
unto Zoar. I1 So Lot chose hiw all the Plain of the Jordan;
and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves
the one from the other. 12 Abrain dwelt in the land of
Canaan, aiid Lot dwelt iii the cities of the Plain, aiid inoued
his teiit as far as Sodom. 13 Now the inen of Sodoiiz were
wicked and sinners against Jehovah exceedingly.
9s

13;1-18 1
14 And Jehovah said unto
sepawdted from him, Lift up
from the place where thou art, nor4
and eastward und westward: 15 for ull the land which1 thou
seest, to thee will I give it, grid t
I will make thy seed as the dust
man can number the dust of the
also be numbered. 17 Arise, wa
length of it and in the breadth of ib; fm uizto thee will I
give it. 18 And Abram moved his teat, and came and
dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which ’pre @ Hebron, a d
built there an ultar unto Jehovah.
2. The Sepurtrati0.n from Lot
We now find Abram back at Bethel, “the place where
his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai,
unto the place of the altar”; and we are told that “there
Abram called on the name of Jehovah.’’ We have learned
that this last statement means that he renewed the public
worship of Yahweh on behalf of his household (retinue).
It should be emphasized at this point that wherever Abram
sojourned, there we find the altar, the sacrifice, and the
priest (the patriarch himself) , the elements of Biblical
religion. It is impossible to harmonize this very important
fact with the notion that Abram came out of Ur of the
Chaldees contaminated by pagan idolatry. Abram and
his household are now back at their second stopping-place
after their entrance into the Promised Land.
At this point a matter of some significance takes
place. “The land was not able to bear” the tents, flocks,
and herds of both Abram and Lot. Hence, a separation
became the feasible solution of the problem. Murphy
(MG, 274, 275): “Lot has been hitherto kept in associa-
tion.with Abram by the ties of kinship. But it becomes
gradually manifest that he has an independent interest, and
is no longer disposed to follow the fortunes of the chosen
96

ABRAHAM AND LOT 13:1-18
of God. In the natural.course of things this under-feeling
comes to the surface. Their serfs come into collision; and
as Abram makes no claim of authority over Lot, he offers
him the choice of a dwelling-place in the land. This issues
in a peaceable separation in which Abram appears to great
advantage. The chosen of the Lord is now in the course
of providence isolated from all associations of kindred.
He stands alone, in a strange land. . , , Lot now also
abounds in the wealth of the East. Two opulent sheiks
(elders, heads of houses) cannot dwell together any more.
Their serfs come to strife. The carnal temper comes out
among their dependents. Such disputes were unavoidable
under the circumstances. Neither party had any title
to the land. Landed property was not yet clearly defined
or secured by law. The land therefore was a common,
where everybody availed himself of the best spot for graz-
ing he could find unoccupied. We can easily understand
what facilities and temptations this would offer for the
strong to overbear the weak. We meet with many inci-
dental notices of such oppression (Gen. 2 1 : 2 5 , 26: 1 5 -22 ;
Exo. 2:16-19). The folly and impropriety of quarreling
among kinsmen about pasture grounds on the present occa-
sion is enhanced by the circumstances that Abram and Lot
are mere strangers among the Kenaanites and the Perrizites,
the settled occupants of the country. Custom had no
doubt already given the possessor a prior claim. Abram
and Lot were there merely on sufferance, because the
country was thinly peopled, and many fertile spots were
still unoccupied.”
Lo’f’s Choice. Note that “Lot lifted up his eyes, and
beheld the Plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered
everywhere. . . , So Lot chose him all the Plain of the
Jordan,” etc. Speiser (ABG, 98) : “Having been orphaned
early in his life (11:28), Lot was brought up first by his
grandfather Terah (II:31), The task was then taken
over by Abraham (12:5), who went on to treat his
97

13:1-18 GENESIS
nephew with unfailing solicitude nderness. Now
the two must part, since each requi
watering radius for his flocks and
choice of territory rests with t
generously cedes this right to his
to take advantage of this unf
picks the greener and richer por
know what fate lay in store for
or how glorious was to be the fu
country to the west? The narrati
of gentle irony, the ever-present iron
Lot lifted up his eyes. Th
he were standing was the conspi
and Ai, from the top of which, according to travelers,
they could see the Jordan, the broad grasslands on either
bank, “and the waving verdure which marks the course of
the stream.” “The plain chosen was situated in, or at least
included, the tract to the south of the Dead Sea, where at
that time there were copious springs and an abundance of
sweet water.” It is surely obvious that Lot was looking out
for “number one,” as we say in American slang. Jamieson
(CECG, 134) : In ye Lot’s choice: A choice excellent from
a worldly point of view, but most inexpedient for his best
interests. He seems, though a good man, to have been
too much under the influence of a selfish and covetous
spirit; and how many, alas! imperil the good of their souls
for the prospect of worldly advantage.” Lange (CDHCG,
398): “It is the vale of Siddim (14:3), the present region
of the Dead Sea, which is here intended. That the lower
valley of the Jordan was peculiarly well-watered, and a
rich pasture region, is expressed by a twofold comparison:
it was as Paradise, and as the land of Egypt. The lower
plain of the Jordan was glorious as the vanished glory of
Paradise, or as the rich plains of the Nile in Egypt, which
were still fresh in the memory of Lot.” The land was
watered not by trenches and canals (irrigation) but by
98

ABRAHAM AND LOT 13~1-18
copious streams along its course, descending chiefly from
the mountains of Moab. Leupold (EG, 430) : “The separa-
tion from Lot is a necessity growing out of deeper reasons
than those usually cited. Lot is an element that is not
suited to be an integral part of the chosen people, as his
later deterioration shows. Circumstances soon arise which
make it eminently desirable to remove this unsuitable
material as early as possible. Behind the outward separa-
tion lies a deeper motivation. At the same time, the inci-
dent has always served in the church as a typical case of
how to deal in a pra,ctical way with the problem of in-
compatibility. If persons simply cannot get along together,
nothing is gained by attempting to force the issue or by
discussing the point until a solution is reached. Incom-
patibility is best dealt with by separation: let those that
cannot agree get out of one another’s way. To Ambrose
is attributed the saying, divide ut inemeat amicitia, a
procedure which does not merit the criticism, ‘a wretched
but practicable rule’ (Delitzsch) .”
The Plaiiz of the Jordaiz, literally, the circle or circuit
of the Jordan, that is, at the southern end of the Dead
Sea. keuyold (EG, 437): “It is not the whole basin of
the Jordan from the Lake of Gennesareth to the Dead Sea,
but only that portion which extends from about Jericho
down to and including the northern end of the Dead Sea
to Zoar. . . . Now when Moses reminds us that this region
was so attractive ‘before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah,’ he clearly implies that in his time the region
was sadly altered. One question will perhaps never be
determined at this point and that is how far the devastating
effects of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah affected
the rest of the Dead Sea region. Some hold that the Bible
indicates that the entire Dead Sea is the result of that
cataclysmic overthrow. We personally believe that indeed
only the southern shallow end of the Dead Sea became
covered with water as a result of the overthrow of these
99

13:1-18
cities, as also Kyle’s in to substantiate.
But at the same time it a less of a blight
settled upon the whole hor goes on to
describe that it once was as ‘the garden of Yahweh,’ by
which he must mean the garden of Eden which was in a
special sense Yahweh’s handiwork. , ,The comparison must
have been suitable, else Moses would not have used it. It
is true that, nevertheless, the simile i4 a bit” strong. Conse-
quently, it is toned down by a s nd simile that has a
fine propriety about it from another poiqt of view: ‘as
the land of Egypt.’ . . . The special propriety of this
latter simile lies in this, that the region is like Egypt in
that a deeper lying river winds through a fertile plain en-
closed by mountains of either side.” See Gen, 14:3, 8, 10,
also (JB, 29, n.) : “The author imagines the Dead Sea as
not yet in existence; or else the Valley of Siddim (the
name is not met with elsewhere) occupied only what is
now the southern part of the Dead Sea, a depression of
relatively recent formation.”
V. 12, K.J.V. The old version is so much more force-
ful here: “Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched
his tent toward Sodom.” What tragedy lay in this last
statement, as strongly intimated in v. 13! Cf. JB (29) :
“Lot chooses a life of ease and a region where immorality
flourishes; for this he will be heavily punished, ch. 19.
But the generosity of Abraham in leaving his nephew the
choice is to be rewarded by a renewal of the promise of
12:7.” The choice of this present world above God in-
evitably leads to Divine judgment, just as it did when Lot
chose to pitch his tent tward Sodom (18:20-21, 19:4-11).
Abram’s Reward (vv. 14-18). Smith-Fields (OTH,
69, 70): Abram “now began to feel the evils of prosperity.
The-land could not support his own cattle and Lot’s. Their
herdsmen quarreled, and Lot probably put forward his
rights as ,head of the family. Abram’s faith did not fail
this time. Remembering that he was ‘the heir of better
100

ABRAHAM AND LOT 13:l-18
promises,’ he gave the choice of present good to Lot. Their
encampment looked westward on the rugged hills of Judea
and eastward on the fertile plain of the Jordan about
Sodom, ‘well watered everywhere, as the garden of the
Lord, like the land of Egypt’ he had only lately left. Even
from that distance, through the clear air of Palestine, can
be distinctly seen the long and thick masses of vegetation
which fringe the numerous streams that, descend from the
hills on either side to meet the central stream in its tropical
depths. It was exactly the prospect to tempt a man who
had no fixed purpose of his own, who had not like Abram
obeyed the stern call of duty, So Lot left his uncle on
the barren hills of Bethel, and chose all the precinct of the
Jordan, and journeyed east. Abram received his reward in
a third blessiizg and promise from Jehovah, who bade him
lift up his eyes and scan the whole land on every side, for
it should be the possession of his seed, and they should be
unnumbered as the dust of the earth.” Yahweh also en-
joins him to walk over his inheritance, and to contemplate
it in all its extent, with the repeated assurance that it will
be his. “To be understood not as a literal direction, but
as an intimation that he might leisurely survey his in-
heritance with the calm assurance that it was his” (PCG,
200). V. 15-Leupold (EG, 441): “True, Abram be-
comes possessor only in his seed. But such possession is none
the less real.” It is none the less real simply because it is
guaranteed by God, who is the Owner of all things (Psa.
24:1, 70:12; 1 Cor. 10:26): and only He could give a
completely clear title to any human being.
3. Abranz’s Third Altar: from Bethel to Mamre.
(Bethel became especially conspicuous in the time of
Jacob (Gen. 28:ll-22, 31:13, 35:l-15). It was allotted
to the tribe of Ephraim later (1 Chron. 7:28) and bordered
the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18 : 13 ) . The Israelites
resettled the town calling it by the name Jacob had given
to the scene in his vision, instead of the name Luz which
.
101

13:1-18 GENESIS
it apparently bore at the time of the“ Conquest (Judg,.
1 :23), It became a sanctuary in t
e of Samuel who
visited it annually (1 Sam. 7:16, 10:3) : chis means undoubtedly
that it was a center of the “school” of the
prophets (1 Sam. 7:16-17, lO:J-ll, 19:18-20; 3 Ki. 2;l-
3) , the famous line which originated 1 with, ’S~muel and
culminated in John the Immerser. The name Bethel means
“house of God.”). HSB (23): “The strife between the
herdsmen of Abraham and Lot represents the $first threat
to the promise of God that Abra would possess the
land, Abraham lived above this t in faith, and his
gracious attitude toward Lot was rewarded by another
confirmation of the promise of God.” (Cf. 13 : 14- 17, also
ch. 1 r). Thus encouraged, the Friend of God (Jas. 2:23)
pulled up stakes again and traveling .southward took up
his abode (tent) under the spreading “oaks” of Mamre,
named after an Amorite prince, with whom and his
brothers Eschol and Aner, the patriarch later formed an
alliance for the purpose of rescuing Lot, 14:13, 24. The
place was near Hebron, a town of great antiquity, having
been built seven years before Tanis in Egypt (Num. 13:22;
cf. Exo. 6: 18), which seems to have been known also at
this time as Kiriath-Arba, “city of Alba,” from Arba, the
father of Anak and the ancestor of the giant Anakim
(Gen, 23:2, 35:27; Josh. 14:13-1J7 lJ:13-14, 21:lO-12).
Evidently on being taken by Caleb it recovered its ancient
name (Josh. 14:13-15). The town is some twenty miles
south of Jerusalem and a like distance north of Beersheba.
It became the burial place of Abraham and his family in
the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 23:19, 25:9, 49:29-33);
from this circumstance the place is revered by the Mohammedans
who call it El-Kbulil, “The Friend,” i.e., the
Friend of God, the name which they give to Abraham.
David first reigned as king in Hebron, and here, too
Absalom began his tragic revolt (2 Sam. J:l-J, 1$:7-12),
It will thus be seen that Hebron had a long and varied
102

ABRAHAM AND LOT 13:1-18
history, under several masters: first, in all likelihood, a
Sheniite, then the Amorites (Gen. 14: 13), then the Hittites
(Gen. 23:lO-20, 25:9), then the Anakim (Num. 13:22,
28; Josh, 14:13-15, 15:13-14), then Judah, and lastly the
Mohammedans. Hebron became Abraham’s more or less
settled abode throughout the rest of his life. There AbYaiiz
built his third altar. “A third altar is here built by Abram.
His wandering course requires a varying place of worship.
It is the Omnipresent whom he adores. The previous visits
of the Lord had completed the restoration of his inward
peace, security, and liberty of access to God, which had
been disturbed by his descent into Egypt, and the tempta-
tion that had overcome him there. He feels himself again
at peace with God, and his fortitude is renewed. He grows
in spiritual knowledge and practice under the great
Teacher” (MG, 278). Lot in the meantime has not only
pitched his tent toward Sodom, but evidently has moved
on into the city itself.
4. The Biblical Accouizt (ch. 14).
Aiid it came to pass in the days of Aiizraphel king of
Shinar, Arioch kiiig of Ellasar, Chedorlaoiizer kiiig of Elain,
and Tidal king of Goiiin, 2 that they made war with Bera
kin,g of Sodoin, and with Birsba kiiig of Goinowah, Shiizaib
king of Adinah, aiid Shenzeber king of Zeboiiiiz, aizd thle
kiizg of Bela (the saine is Zoar). 3 All these joined together
iiz the vale of Siddiin (the sainc is the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve
years they served Chedorlaonzer, avd in the thirteenth year
they rebelled. j And in the fowteeizth year caine Ched-
orlaomer, aiid the kiiigs that u)ere with him, aizd smote
the Rephaiin in Ashterothkariiaim, aizd the Zuzim ii5
Hain, and the Einiin iiz Shauehkiriathaiw, 6 aizd the Horites
in their mount Seir, unto El-paran, which is by the wilder-
ness. 7 And they returned, aiid cmne to Eiiiizisbpat (the
same is Kadesh), and smote all the couiitry of the Anz-
alekites, aiid also the Ainorites, tJ9at dwelt in Hazazoiz-
103

14: 1-20
taww. 8 And there went out the ki
king of Gmorrah, and
of Zeboiim, and the kin
they set the battle in
Siddim; 9 against Che
king of Goiim, and AMraphd king ‘of *‘ Shiiiar, ’and Arioch
king of Ellmar; four kings against.
vule of Siddim was full of slime
Sodom and Gomorrah fled, und ths
thut remuined fled bo the mountain.,
the goods of Sodm and Gomorrab,
and went their way. 12 And th;
brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom,
departed.
13 And there came one that had escaped, and told
Abram the Hebrew: now he dwelt ‘by the ouks of Mamre,
the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, und brother of Aner; and
these were confederate with Abram. 14 And when Abram
beard thd his brother was taken captive, he led forth1 his
trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen,
and pursued as far as Dan. 1J And he divided himself
against them by night, he and his servants, and smote them,
and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand
of Dammcus. 16 And he brought buck all the goods and
also brought buck his brother Lot, and his goods, and the
wmen also, and the people.
17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him,
after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaower and
the kings that were with him, at the vale of Shaueh (the
same is the King’s Vale). 18 And Melchizedek, king of Salem
brqught forth bread and wine: and he was priest of God
Mosf High. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be
Abr&* of “God Most High, Possessor of heuven and earth:
20‘ and blessed be God Most High, who bath delivered thine
enemies 2nto thy hand. And be gave him a tenth of all. 21
Akd the’klng of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the
104

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:l-12
persoizs, and take the goods to thyself. 22 And Abram
said to the kiizg of Sodom, I have lifted up nzy bartd unto
Jehovah, God Most High, Possessor of heaven. aizd earth,
23 that I will izot take a thread wor a shoe-latchet nor
aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made
Abravn rich: 24 save only that which the youizg men hue
egteelz, and the portion of the nzen that wennt with me,
An,er, Eshcol, aizd Manwe; let thein take their portion.
5. The Battle of the Kings (vu. 1-12).
The Cities of the Plain. Lot, we are told, dwelt in
the Cities of the Plain and pitched his tent even as far
as Sodom: i.e., evidently he moved into Sodom itself.
These cities were Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and
Bela (afterward called Zoar). They were located in what
is now the southern part of the Dead Sea below the tongue
of land known as the Lisan which protrudes from its eastern
shore. (BBA, 57): “Fresh water streams flowing down
from the mountains of Moab made possible culture in this
area in the days of Lot. In subsequent years, however, a
great change took place. Evidence indicates that an earth-
quake struck the area about 1900 B.C. The petroleum
and the gases of the region helped produce a conflagration
which totally obliterated the Cities of the Plain. The
Sodom which Lot knew, however, was one of wealth and
luxury which seemed to be excellent prey for an army
bent on plunder. Copper mining was carried on in the
area between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba in
ancient times, and the Cities of the Plain may have con-
trolled these mines. The invaders from the East were
initially successful in securing tribute from this wealthy
area.” Each of these cities had its own king, and Sodom
seems to have been the chief city. Their wickedness was
so great that Sodom gave its name to sins (largely of sex
perversion, cf. Rom. 1:18-32) of which the infamous
record persists down to our own time: they were willing
10J

14:l-12 GENESIS
victims of the vilest of passions, bo
natural use into that which is agains
18:20, 19:5; Deut. 23:17; Rom. 1 -27; 2 Pet. 2:7-8).
Apparently at the very outset Lot tur
ment because “the quiet tenor of
pany of Abram was not sufficient
craved the diversions and the ex
life.”
Of course Lot may not have shared their sins;
indeed we are told explicitly that he was
lasciviousness and violence which preyailed
nevertheless it would seem that a truly godly man would
have, from the very first, shunned such associations. The
lesson to be derived from Lot’s defection is realistic, namely,
that what happened to Lot happens to every mm who
pitches his tent toward Sodom.
The Invasion from the East (vv. 1-12).
Destructive
literary criticism of the Bible treats this story of the Battle
of the Kings more or less contemptuously. For example,
the following comment (JB, p. 29, n.) : ‘This chapter does
not belong to any of the three great sources of Genesis.
Behind it lies a document of great age which has been
touched up so as to give greater prominence to Abraham,
extolling his bravery and selflessness and calling attention
to his connection with Jerusalem. The episode is not im-
probable provided we understand the campaign as an ex-
pedition to clear the caravan route to the Red Sea and
Abraham’s part in it as a raid on the rear of a column
laden with booty. But the narrative does not help to place
Abraham historically because the persons mentioned cannot
be identified: Amraphel is not, as is often asserted, the
famous king of Babylon, Hammurabi. All we can say is
that the narrative finds its most‘ natural setting in the
conditions of the 19th century B.C.” Morgenstern calls
the entire chapter a midrash (Le., an explanation of Hebrew
Scripture dating from between the 4th century B.C., and
the 11th century of the Christian era), composed to
106

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:1-12
glorify Abraham. The campaign described in vv. 1-10,
he says, is that of powerful kings against revolting cities
and strange lands. But in vv. 11-24, it is a Bedouin raid
on two not overly powerful cities. The story is comparable
to the Midianite raids in the Gideon story (Judg., chs. 6
ff.), and the raid of the Amalekites on unprotected Zik-
lag in David’s absence: “the story of David’s pursuit and
recovery of stolen persons and goods .parallels in almost
every detail the story of Abraham’s pursuit and recovery,”
etc. This writer dismisses the entire narrative as the ac-
count of a Bedouin raid in which Lot was captured with
other prisoners and other booty of Sodom. Abraham, with
the help of Aner, Eschol, and Mamre pursue. The enemy
is not overtaken until they reach the vicinity of Dan, far
to the north; feeling themselves outside enemy territory,
they proceed more leisurely, to enjoy the booty. This
enables Abraham to overtake them and recapture Lot and
the booty as a result of their unpreparedness and surprise
by night. Vv. 18-20 most critics hold to be post-Exilic,
a few as pre-Exilic. So argues Morgenstern (“Genesis
14,” SJL, see also in his JIBG). In IBG (590) we read:
‘This narrative is an isolated unit belonging to none of the
main documents of the Hexateuch, and comes from an age
which ‘admires military glory all the more because it can
conduct no wars itself, , . , an age in which, in spite of
certain historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism
had sunk almost to zero.’” (cf. Gunkel, Genesis, pp. 288-
290, and Skinner, ICCG, pp. 271-276).
Evidences cited of the alleged “unhistorical” character
of this tale may be listed as follows (1) The “representa-
tion that four great rulers of the east themselves moved
westward to curb the revolt of five petty kings in Palestine
(vv. 5-9) and that they came by the circuitous route out-
lined in vss. 5-7.” But, cf. Leupold (EG, 451) : “All
manner of fault has been found with this route taken by
Chedorlaomer. Because the reason for it is not given in
107

14:l-12 GENESIS
this brief account, the critics feel they may with impunity
make light of any explanation that we may offer, as
though it must needs be trivial. A.gain and again a very
reasonable explanation has been suggested to them, only to
be brushed aside. The simplest of all explanations is that
the army coming from the east wanted to eliminate the
possibility of an attack from the rear by unfriendly groups.
These unfriendly groups were either unsubdued opponents
or subjugated opponents known to be restive and inclined
to side with other revolters. The author of our chapter
is not under necessity of giving a full account of all that
transpires and of the motives behind every act. For the
building-up of the narrative, what is related is very effec-
tive. It shows the line being drawn closer and closer about
’Sodom, and Gomorrah. We are made to sense the appre-
hension of the revolting cities; and they turn around from
point to point as reports come pouring in about the defeat
of the groups being attacked.” As for the incentive that
prompted four great rulers from the east to quash the
revolt of five petty kings in Palestine, the explanation is
dearly provided by recent archaeological discovery of
metallurgical activities in the area involved. Kraeling (BAY
67) : “Chedorlaomer and his vassal kings are said to have
made war on the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and allied
cities. Until very recently that seemed hard to understand,
but the discovery that copper mining was anciently carried
on in the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of
Aqabah has put a new face on the matter. Babylonian
and Elamite rulers in particular had a problem on their
hands to obtain metals, as well as wool. If Sodom and
Gomorrah *lay. southeast of the Dead Sea these towns could
well. have ‘controlled the mines of el’Arabab, so that an
expedirion from Mesopotamia to seize the mines would
ii popular 1repor;ting assume the form of a campaign against
these places.” Again: “The invaders came through Gilead
to.Moab and Edam. Recent explorations by Glueck have
108

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14,: 1-12
established that there was a line of Bronze Age cities run-
ing down through this region. Several such are mentioned
as being subjected (Gen. 14: 5-6). The places referred to
can be identified with considerable certainty.” The plain
fact is that copper mining was carried on in the region
between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqabah and the
Cities of the Plain may have controlled these mining opera-
tions. “The invaders from the East were initially success-
ful in securing tribute from this wealthy area.” When
after twelve years this tribute was refused by the revolting
cities, it became necessary for the original invaders to re-
impose their demands on them-hence a second invasion
occurred for the purpose of bringing the rebels to time.
In the light of these facts the narrative is entirely plausible.
HSB (24) : “The fact that the four eastern kings devastated
the area from Transjordan down to Kadesh-Barnea is borne
out by Glueck’s findings that sedentary cuIture in Trans-
jordania ceased about the 20th century B.C.”
(2) “The representation that Abram with 318 re-
tainers defeated the combined armies of the eastern kings
(vss. 14-16) .” But Speiser comments (ABG, 104) : “The
number involved is not too small for a surprise attack;
by the same token it enhances the authenticity of the
narrative.” Also Whitelaw (PCG, 206) : “servants, boriz
in 13;s 1307m, ie., the children of his own patriarchal family,
and neither purchased nor taken in war--three handred
a d eighteen-which implied a household of probably a
thousand souls.” Jamieson (CECG, 140) : “Those trained
servants who are described as ‘young men’ (v. 24) were
domestic slaves such as are common in Eastetn countries
still, and are considered and treated as members of the
family. If Abram could spare three hundred and eighteen
slaves, and leave a sufficient number to take care of his
flocks, what a large establishment he, must have had!”
Cf. Haley (ADB, 319) : “Abraham had .not alone routed
the combined forces of the kings. His ‘confederates,’ Aner,
109

14:l-12 GENESIS
Eshcol, and Mamre, may have contributed much the larger
portion of the victorious army.” (Leupold translates this,
“these were bound by covenant to Abram.” This would
indicate an agreement that guaranteed a close relationship.)
These facts seems to be indicated in vv. 23-24: it is difficult
to see how intelligent men could have ignored them.
But again we are told that “nowhere else in the tradition
is Abraham represented as living in such state;” that “in
ch. 23, for instance, he is a lone stranger among the Hittite
inhabitants of Kiriath-arba.” The fact remains, however,
that when Abram left the East, he was accompanied by “all
the souls they had gotten in Haran” (12:T). This refers
to all the bondservants he had gotten during his stay there.
Where there is a large stock of cattle, there must be an
adequate number of servants to attend them. Abraham
and Lot entered Canaan as men of considerable substance.
Moreover, Gen. 12:16 and 13:2 indicate that they came
out of Egypt with a much greater retinue. (Cf. also 18:19
and 24:1). The argument that Abram was a “lone
stranger” among the Hittites of Kiriath-arba is an argument
from silence and does not harmonize with the tenor of the
entire story of his first ventures in Canaan. Critics rely
too much on assumption (or presumptions) to validate
their. views, assumptions which, obviously are not Scripturally
.justified: a fault stemming apparently from their
innate (or academically generated) “inability to see the
forest for the trees.”
(3) “The representation that the Dead Sea was not yet
in existence (cf. 13:lO) .” It is admitted that the words in
v. 3, that is, the Salt Sea, may be a gloss and so may not
reflect accurately the thought of the original writer”
(S-ee IBG,‘ S90) . But recent archaeological evidence supports
the use of chis name,a.s an integral part of the original
narrative; The Salt.. Sea is> the name by which the Dead Sea
is commonly designated in the Pentateuch and in the book
of Joshua (Num. 34:3, Deut. 3:17; Josh. 3:16, 15:2, 5).
110

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14~1-12
Jainieson (CECG, 137) : “It is pre-eminently entitled to
be called ‘the salt sea,’ for it is impregnated with saline
qualities far beyond other seas.” It is must noted that it
is not the entire Dead Sea as we lcnow it that is designated
here, but only that part in which the Vale of Siddim was
located. The Valley of Siddiin, writes Speiser (ABG,
IoI), is “apparently the authentic name of the area at
the southern end of the Dead Sea, which was later sub-
merged.” Cf. BBA (56-57): The Cities of the Plain
“were located in what is now the southern portion of the
Dead Sea below the tongue of land lriiown as the Lisan
which protrudes from its eastern shore. . . . Evidence in-
dicates that an earthquake struck the area about 1900
B.C. The petroleum and gases of the region helped produce
a conflagration which totally obliterated the Cities of the
Plain.’’ Cf. NBD (299) : “The concentrated chemical de-
posits (salt, potash, magnesium, and calcium chlorides and
bromide, 25 per cent of the water), which give the Dead
Sea is buoyancy and its fatal effects on fish, may well have
been ignited during an earthquake and caused the rain of
brimstone and fire destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. . . .
Archaeological evidence suggests a break of several centuries
in the sedentary occupation from early in the second
millenium B.C. A hill of salt (Jebel Usdum, Mt. Sodom)
at the southwest corner is eroded into strange forms, in-
cluding pillars which are shown as ‘Lot’s Wife’ by local
Arabs. (Cf. Wisdom x. 7). Salt was obtained from the
shore (Ezek. 47:11), and the Nabateans traded in the
bitumen which floats on the surface.” (cf. 14:10, 19:23-
28). Kraeling contributes like evidence (BA, 68) : ‘Vale
of Siddim’ is apparently a name for the district at the
south end of the Dead Sea, It is described as full of slime
pits (R.S.V., bitumen pits), which proved disastrous for
the fleeing defenders (cf. v. 10). We have previously
noted that the Dead Sea at times spews up some bitumen
or asphalt. Whether there originally were asphalt pits or
111

14:1, 9 GENESIS
wells to the south of it is not yet known. But Glueck
happened on lumps of asphalt on the shore south of Engedi
in 1953, and describes it as a wonderfully lucky find which
may not have been made a day earlier or later. In the last
century alone the waters have risen six and one-half feet
or more, so that the southern Dead Sea basin has been enlarged
by one-third and considerable land has been put
under water.” Note here summarization in JB (29) : “The
author imagines the Dead Sea as not yet in existence, cf.
13:lO; or else the Valley of Siddim (the name is not met
with elsewhere) occupied only what is now the southern
part of the Dead Sea, a depression of relatively recent formation.”
From evidence presented above the latter view
is obviously the correct one.
The Eastern Kings (14:1, 9). Anzraphel, king of
Shinar. Shinar, is, of course, Babylonia, in the Old Testament.
It is customary to identify Amraphel with the
famous Hammurabi, but the identification is said to be
I<
far from convincing.”
Hegemony of Elam aver Baby-
lonia under a king Kudur-Mabug existed before the time
of Hammurabi, but on the accepted identification of Shinar
with Babylonia, there is still no king-name in the list of
Babylonian rulers that is as comparable to ccAmraphel’y as
that of Hammurabi (Khammurapi) “Further speculation
is unprofitable until the history of Hammurabi’s time is
better known.” Ariocb is certainly comparable to Eri-
Aku whom some identify with Rim-Sin, King of Larsa
(cf. ‘‘Ellasary’), an old Babylonian city on the Lower
Euphrates. (Rim-Sin, ruler of the Larsa Dynasty whom
Hammurabi overthrew, was a son and appointee of Kudur-
Mabug, king of Elam.) Some fresh light is thrown upon
this name “Arioch” from letters to King Zimri-lim of
Mari (1700) which mention a certain Arriyuk, evidently
a vassal, who calls himself that ruler’s ccson.yy Tidal is a
name comparable to that of certain Hittite kings, namely,
Tudkbalia, who flourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth
112

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:1, 9
centuries B.C. “Goiim” may simply mean “nations.” It
is doubtful whether it designates here a special nation or
an aggregation of tribes. Could “Goiim” be an error for
“I~hittim” (Hittites) ? Chedordaonzer, king of Elam, was
the leader of this group of invaders; in all likelihood the
other three were little more than ct~tooges77 who accepted
the overlordship of the King of Elam, who, because of the
lacunae in the listing of early Elam rulers, has not yet been
identified. We know, of course, that the Elamites, who
occupied the territory east of the Tigris, were Indo-
European. However, the political history of this period
is such as to have made the account of a coalition of Elamites
and West Semites entirely feasible. It seems clear
from the narrative here that Chedorlaomer was the
acknowledged commander-in-chief of this marauding
expedition.
The Eastern kings made war, we are told, with the
kings of the Cities of the Plain, namely, the rulers of
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (or Zoar).
(Cf. Gen. 19; Deut. 29:33; Hos. 11:8). The forces were
joined in battle in the Vale of Siddim (see above) in which
the kings of the East were triumphant, reducing the vanquished
to tribute-paying states. After paying tribute for \
twelve years, however, the Cities of the Plain rebelled;
and in the fourteenth year the kings from the East returned
to the attack, again under the leadership of Chedorlaomer.
As described above, they came-from somewhere
on the Euphrates-down by way of Gilead through Transjordania
(east of Jordan) where they ecsmote7’ what appear
to have been the remnants of prehistoric and early historic
peoples, namely: (1) the Rejhaiiiz, evidently a prehistoric
people of gigantic stature (Gem 15:20; Deut. 2:11, 3:ll;
Tosh. 12:4, 13:12; 1 Sam. 17:23-27; 2 Sam. 21:16-22;
1 Chron. 20:4-8; Num. 13:30-33; Deut. 2:20-21). Speiser
(ABG, 102): “It is worth noting that elsewhere this
element is identified as pre-Israelite, which accords well
113

14:1-9 GENESIS
with the indicated early date of the present account.”
Note that the Rephaim dwelt in the twin cities of Ash-
taroth and Karnaim, east of the Sea of Galilee. (2) The
Zzczim (evidently the Zemzimmim of Deut. 2:2O), the
name of a giant pre-Ammonite people who were dispossessed
by the Ammonites. The site of their tdwn, Ham, is un-
known today. (3) The Emim, who also dwelt east of the
Dead Sea and who were, according to Deut. 2:lO-11, fore-
runners of the Moabites. (4) Note also the Anahm
(accounted Rephaim, Deut. 2: 10-1 I), who dwelt south of
Jerusalem around Hebron (Josh. 15:8, 13, 14), who were
displaced by the Israelites (Josh. 11 :21-22, 15 : 14), the
people who are said to have made the Israelites look like
grasshoppers (Num. 13 :3 3, cf. Gen. 6:4). Some have
said that the name ccAnakimy’ meant “the long-necked
ones.” (The Anakim are mentioned in the Torah as be-
longing to the Rephaim; however, they are not mentioned
in the story of Chedorlaomer’s invasion.) Chedorlaomer
and his allies moved southward “smiting” and looting other
peoples who were not actually Rephaim but are named
here in connection with them, namely: (1) The Horites
(Hurrians) , original inhabitants of Mt. Seir (Gen. 14:6),
who were displaced by the Edomites (Deut. 2:12, 22).
Some authorities hold that “Horite” is the name used to
designate two unrelated groups : the non-Semitic Hurrians
(LXX, 34:3; also Josh. 9:7) and the Semitic predecessors
of Seir Edom (Gen, 36:20, Deut. 12, 22, as in Gen. 14:6).
(See ABG, 102). Seir was the name of the “mountain
mass” of Edom, south of the Dead Sea and extending down
the dry desert Arabah rift to the head of the Gulf of
Aqabah (Deut. 2:1, 33:2). The Edomites were the de-
scendants of Esau (Gen. 36:8, Josh. 24:4). Yet chieftains
of the Horites were designated the children of Seir in the
land of Edom (Gen. 36:21, 30; cf. Ezek. 35:2 ff.). These
Horites (Gen. 14: 6) non-Semitic Hurrians who invaded
N. Mesopotamia and spread over Palestine and Syria in
114

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:8-12
the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries B.C, (Cf. Gen. 32:3,
36:20 f.; Deut. 2:l-29; Josh. 24:4; 1 Chron. 4:42 ff.).
(2) The Anzalehites, traditional enemies of Israel (Exo.
17:8-16, Deut. 25:17-19, 1 Sam., chs. 15 and 30). (3)
The Aiizorites, early occupants of Syria and Palestine; in
the third millenium B.C. this region was designated by
Babylonian records “the land of the Amorites.” Hammurabi
conquered Mari, the Amorite capital, in the 17th
century B.C. They are listed with the families occupying
Canaan in Gen. 10: 1 5 ff. Hazazon-taiizar, v. 7, is identified
with Engedi, on the west shore of the Dead Sea (2
Chron. 20:2). The Eastern invaders apparently made a
wide turn to the right before starting homeward. Enivisbpad
is positively identified here with Kadesh Barnea,
the famous stopping-place of the Israelites during their
wilderness wanderings. It will thus be seen that El-paran
marked the farthest point reached, for, after reaching it,
the invaders “returned” (“turned baclr”) in the direction
of En -mis hpat .
The Battle-and Disaster (vv. 8-12),
The kings of
the Cities of the Plain now joined battle with the Eastern
allies in the Vale of Siddim. Leupold (EG, 455) : “That
the kings of the Dead Sea region did not turn out sooner
to encounter the foe of whose approach they had long
been aware, indicates either lack of ability and enterprise,
or lack of courage, or, perhaps, the illusory hope on their
part that their enemies would not venture against them.
It seems most in harmony with the facts of the case to
argue that the debauched mode of life characteristic of
this group had debased their courage so that they only took
up arms when actually compelled to and then put up but
a pitiable defense.” It should be noted that Sodom is
mentioned first in the list of the Cities of the Plain
(Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela) ; this in-
dicates that the king of Sodom was the leader of the defense
forces and that Sodom itself was the most powerful city in
11J

14:8-12 GENESIS
this alliance, The result was complete disaster for the
defending forces. (See supru for the Valley of Siddim and
its slime pits, that is, bitumen pits, evidently “wells of
liquid pitch oozing from the earth.” Note Isaiah’s vision
of the Day of the Lord (34:9), as the time when the land
should be turned to burning pitch.) The kings of Sodom
and Gomorrah fled, and “they fell there.” Does this mean
that they died there? Evidently not (cf. v. 17). Speiser
(ABG, 102) : “Elung themselves: literally ‘fell’; but the
Hebrew stem (npl) often carries a reflexive connotation,
notably in the phrase ‘to fall on one’s neck’ (33 :4, 45: 14,
46:29), which describes a voluntary act: see also 17:3.”
Leupold (EG, 456) , noting the indication in v. 17 that
the king of Sodom was still living, “a new king of Sodom
could hardly be met with so soon, for opportunity for
the choice of one had hardly been given, But this verb
nuphul may mean ‘to get down hastily’ (cf. 24:64). So
we have the somewhat disgraceful situation of a number
of defeated kings crawling into bitumen pits, and their
defeated army taking refuge in the mountains.” Certainly
this explanation is in accord with the generally unenviable
role which these kings played in this entire encounter.
The victors, of course, ravaged the towns, seized all the
booty that could be transported readily, the women and
children (no doubt with the intention of making slaves
of them), and carried away Lot and his family among the
captives. The narrative goes on to explain that Lot now
“dwelt in Sodom.” Obviously, Abraham’s nephew had
taken up residence in the city itself (by now he had
pitched his tent in Sodom)-a development a bit puzzling
to account for. It seems also that he was not in the de-
fending army, or, if he was, was unfortunate enough to be
taken captive, along with his “goods” and his family (v.
16). Lot’s initial choice of Sodom and Gomorrah was
wrong. The Apostle (2 Pet. 2:8) tells us that “righteous
Lot” was “sore distressed by the lascivious life of the
116

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 12-16
wicked” (Sodomites) , that “seeing and hearing, he vexed
his righteous soul from day to+ day with their lawless
deeds.” But there is not even an intimation in the Genesis
account that Lot was under the necessity of living in that
environment: why, then, did he not get out of it? It does
not take any great exercise of the imagination to suggest
the answers to this question. In the first place, it is almost
a certainty that the family which Lot had reared in this
environment of lust and violence was completely out of
accord with his own “righteousness,” and in the second
place, we must admit that Lot’s own “righteousness” was
not sufficiently virile to impel him to break away from
the wickedness which enveloped him on all sides (cf. ch.
19, also Matt. 10:34-39). Those who pitch their teqits
toward Sodom usually coine to the inglorious end of beiizg
swallowed up in Sodom. It was oidy through Abrahanz’s
intercession that Lot was finally rescued fronz the divine
judgment visited upoiz all the Cities of the Plain.
6. The Rescue of Lot (vv. 13 -1 6).
Abram was still sojourning in the vale of Mamre
when the tidings of Lot’s capture was brought him by one
who had escaped. Three Amorite brothers, Mamre, Eshcol,
and Aner, joined him with their clans, and he then armed
his own three hundred and eighteen servants, and, dividing
his small army into several bands, pursued the conquerors
and fell upon them by night near Dan. Thus gaining
the initiative, Abraham and his allies routed the invaders
and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus, recover-
ing the plunder and the prisoners. (See Num. 20:17).
Abraiiz the Hebrew. Lange (CDHCG, 404): “Abram the
Hebrew, that is, the immigrant. Abraham, as Lot also, was
viewed by the escaped, who was born in the land, as an
immigrant, and because Lot the Hebrew was a captive, he
sought Abram the Hebrew.” (“Hebrew” as “crosser over,”
that is, the Euphrates: hence, “immigrant.” This is the
view of some authorities.) (Or, were the Hebrews to be
117

14:13-16 GENESIS
identified with the aggressive roaming Habiru, who are
mentioned in tablets from the 19th and 18th centuries, and
from the Tell el-Amarna letters of the 11th and 14th
centuries, as invading “the king’s cities”?) On the other
hand, was not Abram sprung from a large branch of the
Shemites who continued to live in Shinar, and who prob-
ably regarded Eber as their direct ancestor? It seems to
be a confirmation of this view that the word ‘Hebrew’
appears with peculiar propriety applied to Abram here
(v. 13) as a patronymic, in contradistinction to his allies,
who are styled Amorites (14:lj). “Hebrew” is the name
used for self-identification to foreigners (40:13, 43 :32).
V. 14, Lot us Abruids “brother”: such terms as “brother,”
“sister,” which were used by Hebrews as cognate terms are
used by Orientals still, in a wide sense, equivalent to
relative, kinsman or kinswoman (cf. 2O:ll with 28:6,
24:60; 2 Sam. 19:13, Judg. 14:11, Job 42:ll). Note
Abrum’s 318 trained men. Note that these were men
‘born in his house even before he had a son of his own
.(12:1, 14:14). Note the pursuit to Dm.. Before its
capture by the Danites, this city was known as Laish
(Judg. 18:29). (HSB, 24) : “The name was modernized
in Genesis so that the reader could readily identify the
familiar Danite city.”, Dan was the northernmost Israelite
city; hence the phrase, “from Dan to Beersheba” (e.g.,
Judg. 20:l). But, writes Leupold (EG, 4j9) : “This town,
as all know, first received the name Dan in the days of
the Judges: see Judg. 18:7, 29. The use of the term at
this point would then be clearly post-Mosaic and evidence
of authorsKip of the book later than the time of the Judges.
Critics are so ready t accept this view that by almost uni-
verd consent they fiore the other possible location of
Dan so entirely as.t t was not even worthy of con-
sideration. For an n in Gilead (see Deut. 34:1),
mentioned apparently in -2 Sam. 24:6 as ‘Dan Jaan,’ ex-
cellently meets the needs of the case, for that matter even
118

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 16-24
better than does Laish. For Dan Jaaii must lie, according
to Deut. 34:1, on the northern edge of Gilead and therefore
about east, perhaps fifteen or twenty miles from the
southern end of the Dead Sea, and therefore along the
route than an army retreating to Babylon and Elam would
be most likely to take in approaching Damascus. Dan
Laish lies too far north and presents difficulties for men
in flight, who would hardly turn to Damascus in flight
because of intervening rivers. Consequently, we have here
no post-Mosaic terms and everything conforms excellently
with the idea of Mosaic authorship.” This seems to the
present writer the most satisfactory explanation of this
geographical problem. However, we must still recognize
the fact that the “modernization” of a town-name by a
later writer really has no significant bearing on the basic
problem of Mosaic authorship. (Cf. my Genesis, Vol. I,
pp. 62-66).
7. The Meetiizg with Melchizedek (uv. 17-24)
On his return from their rout of the kings from the
East, Abram and his allies were greeted by the King of
Sodom in the Vale of Shave11 (“the same is the King’s
Vale”). Note the reference here to the king of Sodoin.
Do we have here a conflict between v. 10 and this verse
17? Not necessarily.
Did the king of Sodom of vv. 2,
8, 10 actually die in the bitumen pits, and was the king
of Sodom of v. 17 his immediate successor? It is said by
some that this could not have been the case because “a
new king of Sodom could hardly be met with so soon”
(see sufira). The present writer holds this objection to
be unwarranted for the simple reason that in hereditary
monarchies when the death of a king occurs, succession to
the throne follows at once as determined by customary or
statutory law. (Even when a president of the United
States dies while in office, his successor assumes the duties
of the presidency without delay.) However, the correct
resolution of this problem is in all probability that which
119

14:17-24 GENESIS
is suggested in a foregoing paragraph, namely, that the
original text indicates that the defeated kings “fell,” in
the sense of having “flung themselves,” into the bitumen
pits to save their own skins, leaving their armies to find
refuge in flight into the surrounding mountains. Hence
Leupold, on v. 17 (EG, 461-462) : “‘The king of Sodom,’
whom we last saw taking precipitate refuge in the bitumen
pits, now again has come forth and desires to acknowledge
publicly the inestimable benefit that Abram has bestowed
upon him. Critics again attempt to invalidate the story
by stating that this verse conflicts with verse IO, claiming
that there the king of Sodom died, here he is resurrected.
In all fairness they ought to offer their readers the simple
explanation given above, that v. 10 may mean they hastily
hid in the pits. The canons of criticism employed by
critics are often so sharp that no writings, not even their
own, could pass muster in the face of them.” The King’s
Vde: according to Joseph (Ant., 8:lO) about a quarter
of a mile north (or northeast) of Jerusalem; described
as a. broad, defenseless valley, also known as the “King’s
Dale.” It was here that Absalom later erected a memorial
pillar for himself (2 Sam. 18 : 18).
It was here that one of the most memorable, mysterious
and prophetic incidents in Abraham’s career, indeed in the
entire Old Testament, occurred. It seems that the king of
Sodom was accompanined by a mysterious and venerated
personage by the nanie. of Melchizedek, who is described
as King of Salem and Priest of God Most High. The
sudden appearance of onerwho united in himself both the
kingly and .priestly functions, of whose origin and history
we know -nothing,‘ has led to much useless speculation.
Maclear (COTH, 3 5 ) : “Putting aside the more improbable
conjectures, we may perhaps conclude that he was an
eminent Canaanitish prince in the line of Ham, who ,had
maintained the-pure worship of the One True God, and
who, according to a custom not uncommon in patriarchal
120

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:17-24
times, was at once king and priest. A sufficient proof of
his high dignity is afforded by the fact that to him Abram
reverently gave tithes of all that he had taken in his late
successful expedition, and received his solemn blessing
(Heb. 7:2, 6) .” Nowhere does the bias of Jewish com-
mentators against any New Testament contribution to the
understanding of an Old Testament passage or incident
show up more clearly than in their efforts to “explain
away” the content of this fourteenth chapter of Genesis,
and especially the account of Abram’s meeting with
Melchizedek, by defining it as a midrash designed to
glorify the patriarch Abraham (or even the antiquity of
Jerusalem). For example, Morgenstern writes (JIBG) :
“It is a midrash pure and simple, in which the glory of the
patriarch Abraham is enhanced by the representation of
him as the paragon of bravery, intrepid and successful
warriorship, honor, faithfulness, pride, and magnanimity.’’
By all critics of like “persuasion,” the entire account had
to be post-exilic. From the point of view of the New
Testament no satisfactory understanding of the Melchi-
zedek incident is possible, apart from the teaching which
is presented in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Here the Messianic significance of the
story of the Priest-Icing Melchizedek is asserted too clearly
for misunderstanding, and even though this explanation
does really enhance the mystery, still and all it does bring
it within the purview of a reasonable article of Christian
faith. Beyond this we cannot go; without it the Melchi-
zedek story is meaningless. It is not surprising, of course,
that all who reject the Messiahship of Jesus are certain to
reject, of tentimes to ridicule, the Old Testament evidence
which supports the fact of His Messiahship. Among all
such critics, Jew or Gentile, a blind spot develops as soon
as New Testament teaching is disregarded either ignorantly
or wilfully: a fact which again confirms one of the most
important rules of interpretation-and one which has been
121

14: 17-24 GENESIS
emphasized repeatedly in the present work-namely, that
any passage of Scripture must be understood not only in
the light of its immediate context but also in the light of
Bible teaching as a whole. Those persons who refuse to
correlate Old Testament and New Testament teaching
properly will never acquire any comprehensive understanding
of the Book of the Spirit.
King of Salem. The name Melchizedek means “king
of righteousness.” Salem means “peace.” Salem here is
undoubtedly Jerusalem, which did not become an Israelite
city until the reign of David. “Salem’y is simply a shortened
form of ccJerusalem,yy the Urusalim of the Amarna
letters of the fourteenth century B.C.; the short form
appears again in Psa. 76:2. This identification is further
confirmed by the fact that proper names are frequently
used in Scripture in abbreviated forms. Moreover, Abram
is portrayed as having practically returned from his “military”
expedition, that is, he is back to Hebron, and Jerusalem
is not far from Hebron. Note that Melchizedek
brought bread and wine to refresh the returning warriors.
“He did this as one who wants to be seen to offer his
support to such good men, who do such laudable things
as Abram had done. He recognizes that a generous offer
of rations far the troops was at this time the prime
physical necessity. Nothing more should be sought in this
act of Melchizedek’s. He expresses his friendship and perhaps
his religious kinship with Abram by offering the
most common form of meat and drink, ‘bread and wine’”
(EG, 463). Lange (CDHCG, 404) : “The papists explain
it with reference to the sacrifices of the mass, but the
reference is fatal to their own case, since Melchizedek gave
the wine also. He brought forth, not he brought before
God.”
Priest of God Most h, literally, El Elyon, of which
the first term, El, from same root as in Elohim (Gen.
1 : 1) , signifies The Mighty One, and is seldom applied to
122

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 17-23
God without some qualifying attribute or cognomen, as
El Shaddai (Gen. 17: 1, God Almighty), El Ejohe Yisrael
(Gen. 33:20, God, the God of Israel) ; and the second,
Elyon, occurring frequently (Num. 24: 16, Psa. 7:17, 9:2)
describes God as the Highest, the Exalted, etc., and is some-
times used in conjunction with Jehovah (Psa. 7:17), and
with Elohini (Psa. 57:2), while sometimes it stands alone
(Psa. 21:7). Whitelaw (PCG, 209)’: “Most probably the
designation here describes the name under which the Su-
preme Deity was worshipped by Melchizedek and the king
of Sodom, whom Abram recognizes as followers of the
true God by identifying, as in v. 22, El-Elyon with Je-
hovah.” Lange, quoting Delitzsch, declares that the
signification of the name used here is moizotbeistic, “not
God as the highest among many, but in a monotheistic
sense, the one most high God” (CDHCG, 404). Leupold
(EG, 465): “The priest defines who he considers El Elyon
to be, namely, ‘the Creator of heaven and earth’-a strictly
monothesistic conception and entirely correct. Though
we only assume that Melchizedek came into possession of
the truth concerning God by way of the tradition that
still prevailed pure and true in a few instances at this late
date after the Flood, there is nothing that conflicts with
such an assumption except an evolution theory of history,
which, at this point, as so often, conflicts with facts. The
verb for ‘Creator’ (for ‘Creator’ is a participle) is not the
customary bara, as the usual Hebrew tradition knows it,
but the less common quanab, a further indication that
Melchizedek had a religious background different from
Abram’s. In fact it would seem that Melchizedek is not in
possession of as full a measure of the truth as is Abram: for,
apparently, Melchizedek does not know God as Yahweh,
though the correctness of the conception ‘God Most High’
cannot be denied.” We see no reason for questioning the
view that a strain of Semitic monotheism persisted in many
instances, perhaps isolated instances, despite the inroads of
123

tt: 17-24 .. GENESIS , .T I I I
idolatry ,and other forms of paganism, ,,down through the
time of Noah to the age of Abrahap, Isaac, and Jacpb.,
This fact seems to be pointed up :hpe in the story of
Abram’s meeting with Melchizedek. , .The follawing comment
(JB, 31, n.) is interesting and enlightening: T s . 76:2,
the whole subsequent Jewish tradition,^ .and many of the
Fathers identify Salem with Jerusalem, , Its. *priest-king
Melchizedek (the name is Canaanite,’ cit -hdonizedek, king
of Jerusalem, Josh. 1O:l) worships the $40~~ High God, El-
Elyon, a compound name, each of its two partspbeing the
title of a god in the Phoenician pantheqn. E!yon is used in
the Bible (especially Psalms) as a divine,title: In this passage,
v. 22, El-Elyon is identified with the, true God of
Abraham. Melchizedek makes a brief and mysterious appearance
in the narrative: he is king of that Jerusalem where
Yahweh will deign to dwell, and a priest of the Most High
even before the Levitical priesthood was established; moreover,
he receives tithes from the Father .of the chosen people.
Ps. 11O:4 represents him as a figure of the Messiah who is
both king and priest: the application to Christ’s priesthood
is worked out in Heb. 7. Patristic tradition has developed
and enriched this allegorical interpretation; in the bread
and wine offered to Abraham it sees an image of the Eucharist
and even a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic sacrificean
interpretation that has been received into the Canon of
the Mass. Several of the Fathers held the opinion that Melchizedek
was a manifestation of the Son of God in person.”
(Protestantism, justifiably, has never seen any reason for
accepting this Catholic “allegorical interpretation” of the
bread-and-wine incident. See Lange’s statement sutra.
Note that the word “Eucharist” is not in Scripture: it is a
coinage of speculative theology, as is the assumption regarding
Melchizedek’s proffer of bread and wine to Abraham,
Many theologians have not been able to resist the
temptation to stretch Biblical allegory beyond all reasonable,limits.
This is especially true in cases in which the
124

I
I
I
’
ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:17-24
imaginary extensionL of the meaning of a term seems to
warrant sacerdotalism; that is, the magical powers of a
special human priesthood. Traditional sacramentalism and
sacerdotalism, both‘ ixnscriptural, naturally go together: the
one is presumed to justify the other.) Cf. HSB, 25:
“Melc/!izedeIz (king of righteousness) was both priest and
king of Salem (peuce), probably the old name for Jerusalem.
In the book of Hebrews the priestly function is
stressed when Melchizedek is presented as a type of ,Christ.
This emphasis rests on Ps. 11O:4 where the Lord says
through David, ‘You aye a priest for ever after the order
of Melchizedek.’ In Hebrews (7:l-17) the eternal priesthood
of Melchizedek ik shown to be superior to the Aaronic
priesthood, which was transistory and imperfect.” Speiser
(ABG, 109): “The notice about Melchizedek merits a
measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an
authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would
be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to
Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable
apposition, which is not less appropriate in his particular
case. That later religious Hebrew literature should have
identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite possibly on the
basis of this passage, is readily understandable. But this
appears to be the only late reflex of Gen. 14. The narrative
itself has all the ingredients of historicity.” Again:
(ibid., 104) : “Both elements (rei and ‘elyou) occur as
names of specific deities, the first in Ugaritic and the
second in Phoenician; the Aram. inscription from Sujin
combines the two into a compound.” It should be noted
that El is the component rendered ‘God’ in compound
names, such as ‘God Almighty’ (17: 1) , ‘the Everlasting
God’ (21 : 3 3), ‘God, the God of Israel’ (3 3 :20), ‘God of
Bethel’ (35:7). It is held to be the oldest Semitic appella-
tion for God. Elyoii is used frequently in the Old Testa-
ment of the Lord (with el in Ps. 78:35), especially in
psalms referring clearly to Jerusalem and its temple (Psa.
125

~1!4:17-24 GENESIS : 4 ~
*9:2, 21:7, 46:4, 10:14, 87:J). (Se G, 198). (SIB,
234)’: “Who this Melchizedek vqs, this priest of ,Gc$
among the Canaanites, greater thaQ.,+4bram, the friend of
God, who were his parents or his symessors, is on purpose
concealed by the Holy Ghost, And, hence he, is without
father- or mother, predecessor or successor, i
account,. in order that he might $typijy th
hensible dignity, the amazing pedigreed- and
duration of Jesus Christ, our great High.priest. Heb. 6:20,
‘Jesus was made a high priest after the, order of Melchizedek’;
Heb. J:6, 10; Psa. 110:4; Heb.,7:l724),.’,
In the New Testament account.of Melchizedek (Heb.,
chs. 6, 7), we find him described as-both king and priest;
hence our Christ (Messiah) is likeyise +a King-Priest after
the order of Melchizedek. It is also said of Melchizedek
that he is “without father, without mather,, without genealogy,
having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” “but
made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually”
(Heb. 7:2, 3%). It is further declared that our great High
Priest was made High Priest “not after the law of a carnal
commandment” (as in the case of the Levitical priesthood),
but in “the likeness of Melchizedek” was made High Priest
“after the power of an endless life” (7:15-17). Does this
really mean that the analogy is only “in the historical
account”? So writes Milligan (NTCH, 198) : “, . . the
Apostle manifestly uses these negative epithets in our text,
to denote simply that the parentage of Melchizedek is unknown;
that so far as the record goes, he was without
father and without mother, and furthermore that he was
without descent, or, rather, without genealogy. Nothing
concerning either his ancestry or his posterity is recorded
in the Holy Scriptures. There, he appears on the page of
typical history isolated and alone, . . . Christ, in the sense
in , is here contemplated by our author, had no
Pre , and he will have no successors. He himself
will continue to officiate as our royal high priest during
126

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 17-24
the entire period of his mediatorial reign. And so it was
with Melchisedec. So far as the record goes, his priesthood,
as well as that of Christ, was unbroken, uninterrupted by
any changes of succession. All that is here meant by his
being made like unto the Son of God and abiding a priest
perpetually is simply this: that like Jesus he completely
fills up the entire era of his royal priesthood in his own
proper person. This period, however short, is intended to
serve as a typical representation of the era of Christ’s
priesthood, and Melchisedec is thus made a more perfect
type of Christ than was Aaron or any of his successors. . . .
And all that is therefore implied in the words of the text
is simply this: that as the shadow, however small it may
be, corresponds with the substance which forms it, so also
did the priesthood of ,Melchisedec correspond with that of
Christ. Each of them was unbroken, uninterrupted, and
relatively perfect in itself. Great care is therefore neces-
sary in dealing with these relative terms and expressions,
lest peradventure we give them an extension which is
wholly beyond what was intended by the Holy Spirit.”
True it is that “this Canaanite crosses for a moment
the path of Abram, and is unhesitatingly recognized as a
person of higher spiritual rank than the friend of God.
Disappearing as suddenly as he came in, he is lost to the
sacred writing for a thousand years; and then a few em-
phatic words for another moment bring him into sight as
a type of the coming Lord of David. Once more, after
another thousand years, the Hebrew Christians are taught
to see in him a proof that it was the consistent purpose of
God to abolish the Levitical priesthood. His person, his
office, his relation to Christ, and the seat of his sovereignty,
have given rise to innumerable discussions, which even now
can scarcely be considered as settled” (OTH, 99). But
can we really be satisfied with the view that all that is
said of Melchizedek as a type of Christ is fulfilled simply
“in historical account,” that is, without reference to the
127

14:17-24 GENESIS 1)
real life-identity of this King-prieso? Is not some truth
infinitely more profound intended here (1) in the aJd
Testament picture of the intercoucse.7between Abram and
Melchizedek, and especially (2) in ‘the New Testament
elaboration of the significance of Melchizedek as typical
of the Priesthood of Christ. Is this historical-or to be
more exact, epistolary-presentation 06 I the identity of
Melchizedek all that is implied in ‘Abram’s- recognition of
this king-priest of what was later to be the locale of the
throne of David? (cf. Psa. 110:4, Isa. 9:6, 17). Note
especially Heb. 7:4, “Now consider. how great this man
was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth aut
of the chief spoils.” (HEW, 114-11 15): “The proof of
the greatness of Melchisedec here given is threefold. 1. In
the nomination of the person that was subject unto him-
Abraham; he was the stock and root of the whole people,
their common father, in whom they were first separated
from the other nations to be a people of themselves. It
was he who first received the promise and the covenant
with the token of it; therefore, the Hebrews esteemd
Abraham next unto God Himself. 2. In the fact that
Abraham was a patriarch, that is, a father who is a prince
and ruler in this family. Those who succeeded Abraham
are called ‘patriarchs’; but he, being the first of all these,
is accounted the principal, and hath the pre-eminence over
all the rest. If anyone were greater than Abraham in his
own time, it must be acknowledged that it was upon the
account of some privilege that was above all that ever that
whole nation as descendants of Abraham were made partakers
of. But that this was so the Apostle proves by the
instance ensuing, namely, that Abraham gave to Melchisedec.
3. Abraham ‘gave the tenth of the spoils,’ not
arbitrarily but in the way of a necessary duty; not as an
honorary respect, but as a religious office. He gave ‘the
tenth,’ delivering it up to the use and disposal of the priest
of the Most High God. He gave the tenth of the spoils,
128

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:17-24
a portion taken out ‘of the whole, and representing the
whole. What further concerns the greatness of Melchi-
sedec the Apostle declares in the ensuing verses, , . . The
sole reason that can be given for the greatness of Melchi-
sedec is, that God raised him up, and disposed of him into
that condition of His own good pleasure.” (Comments by
John Owen on Heb. 7: 1-7).
It should be noted that in response to Abram’s un-
solicited manifestation of the most devout regard for
Melchizedek (actually, no doubt, for the twofold office
vested in him), that the latter is said to have pronounced
a twofold blessing himself, namely, he blessed Abram (of
God Most High), and he blessed God Most High (El Elyon)
also. Leupold (EG, 465-466) : “Melchizedek’s blessing is in
every way what it should be: it ascribes the glory to God
and lets Abram appear merely as what he is, an instrument
God deigned to use-so the second half of the blessing. The
first half had represented Abram as standing in need of
the blessing of El Elyon and therefore bestowed that bless-
ing from the hands of the Omnipotent Creator. . . . There
can be no doubt about it that whether long or short this
blessing was a clear-cut confession of him who gave it
and a strong testimony to the truth, given at a solemn
moment under memorable circumstances also in the ears
of an ungodly and unbelieving group of neighbors. No
doubt, on Moses’ part the object of recording so memor-
able a piece of history connected with one of the major
cities of the blessed land, was to impress the people with
the glorious record that truth had had in the earliest day
in some of these venerable cities.”
Thus it will be seen that both of these factors, namely,
Abram’s manifestation of profound regard for Melchi-
zedek, and the latter’s twofold benediction in response,
accompanied by his provision of food for the rescuing
forces, surely point up the fact that the timelessizess at-
tributed to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews
129

17-24 GENESIS :
st be regarded as something moGe\ than a matter of
epistolary recording. Certainly this entire account is evidence
that a strong monotheism conti
some Semitic groups down- to Abrab
4:26), and that Abram inwardly re
the personal regard he manifested t
of Salem and outwardly recognize
“tenth” of the spoils which he had
sented to him. The tithe was later incorporated in the
Mosaic Law (Lev. 27:30-33, Num. ,J8:
these various factors indicate anything m
the present writer’s opinion it can reas
that they do; that they might well support the conviction
held by several of the Church Fathers, and by many able
Biblical scholars throughout the ages, that Melchizedek
was an epiphany of the personal Logos (John l:l), the
One “whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting”
Mic. 5:2, (RSV, “whose origin is from of old, from
ancient days”), the One who is the First and the Last, the
Living One, Rev. 1:17-18 (that is, without beginning or
end), the One who became God’s Only Begotten in the
Bethlehem manger (John 1:1-3, Luke 1:35, John 3:16,
Gal. 4:4). Is not this One-the Logos, the Son-the executive
Agent in the unfolding of God’s Eternal Purpose,
both in Creation and in Redemption? (Cf. Psa. 33:6, 9;
Psa. 148:l-6; Heb. 11:3, Col. 1:16, John 1:3, 1 Tim. 2:6,
Eph. 1:7, Rom. 3:24-25, Heb. 9:12.) Of course we know
that the Bible is made up of two main parts, known as
Covenants or (in stereotyped form) as Testaments or Wills.
The second part is known as the New or Last Will and
Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If He-
Jesus Christ-left a New or Last Mill, did He not authorize
an Old or First Will and Testament, at some time and
pose? If so, what is this First or Old Will?
o be found? Is it not the Old Covenant or
Testament of the Scriptures?
Was it not also the Testa-
130

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 17-24
melzt of ow Lord avd Savior Jesus Christ? That is to say,
when God finished the work of Creation and entered into
His rest (Gen, 2:2) , did not the Logos, the Son, take over
the direction of the divine Plan of Redemption? Is not
the Old Testanzeizt as truly His as the New Testament is?
Jf not, what does the Apostle mean, 1 Cor. 10:4,
when he tells us that ancient Israel in the Exodus “drank
of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was
Christ”? (Cf. Exo. 17:6, Num. 20:11, Psa. 78:15.)
Furthermore, who was the “Angel of Jehovah” of the Old
Testament record? Strong writes (ST, 319) : In the Old
Testament “the appearances of ‘the angel of Jehovah’ seem
to be preliminary manifestations of the divine Logos.”
(Cf. Gen. 18:2, 13; Dan. 3:25, 28; Gen. 22:11, 16; Gen.
31~11-13, 16~9-13, 48:15, 16; EXO. 3:2, 4, J; Judge 13:20-
22.) Strong (ibid) : “Though the phrase ‘angel of Jehovah’
is sometimes used in later Scriptures to denote a merely
human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old
Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to
designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in
angelic or human form foreshadowed his final coming in
the flesh.” (Cf. also Josh. 5:13-15 and Gen. 32:l-2.)
Who was this Prince of the Host of Yahweh? Was He
the angel Michael (Dan. 10:13, l2:l; Jude 9, Rev. 12:7),
or was He the Pre-incarnate Logos?) See also John 17:4,
24; John 8:J8, 19:30; Phil. 2:5-8: it should be noted that
the statements of Jesus referred to here were all spoken
under the Old Covenant, before the New Covnant was
ratified at Golgoltha and the Christian Dispensation was
ushered in, on Pentecost, A.D: 30 (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb.,
chs. 8, 9; John 1:17; 2 Cor., ch. 3; Matt. J:17-20, Acts
2. etc.). We might add here that those who reject the
Virgin Birth of Jesus should be prepared to “explain away”
the repeated Scripture affirmations of His eternal Pre-
existence (cf. John l7:fy 8:58, 1:l-J; Phil. 2:5-8; Col.
1:13-18; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:l-4) as the Logos, the Very
131

14: 17-24 GENESIS 2% z‘ e,’
Image, and the Effulgence of Go 11 this is in harmony
with the view held by many com scholars that where-
as the name Elohim designates the; Creator-God, ‘the high
and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity” (ha. $7: 11) , the
name Yabweh designates the Covenant-God, whose love
embraces especially His moral creation (John 3 : 16, 1 John
4:7-11) to the extent of having provided redemption of
spirit and soul and body (1 Thess. $:23) for all who
commit themselves to Him by the obedience of faith
(Rom. 3:21-2$). Do we not have abundant evidence,
then, to justify our conviction that the Covenant-God of
Scripture is indeed the Logos, the Author of both the Old
Testament and the New? To sum up: It is the conuictim
of the present writer that this identification of Melchiz-
edek. as a pre-incarnate minifestation of the Logos is in
harmony with Biblical teaching as a whole, and tht it
does justice to the details of the Genesis narrative of
Abram’s meeting with this King of Salenz and Priest of
God Most High, more fully than any other explanation
that can be offered.
Other noteworthy details of this meeting of Abram
with the King of Sodom and the King-Priest Melchizedek
are the following: (1) The apparent magncFnimity of the
King of Sodom, who, perhaps anticipating that like dona-
tions of the spoils might be made to him as to Melchizedek,
said simply, Give me the souls (of my people), ie., the
domestic slaves (cf. 12: 5) , and keep the goods recaptured
(“the movable chattels”) , such as precious garments, all
gold and silver, weapons, catle, etc., to thyself. This, of
course, Abram was entitled to do, according to the custom-
ary laws of the time, by right of military victory. It must
be recognized, of course, that the spoils in this case included
much that had been stolen by the Eastern kings from their
original owners (in the cities of the plain), and probably
additional spoils which the marauders had seized elsewhere
in the course of their looting expedition. These facts seem
132

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14:17-24
to enhance the generosity of the King of Sodom in this
case. . (2) Abram’s oath and conuequent reply, vv. 22-24.
I have lifted up my hand unto Yahweh, God Most High
(El-Elyon), ccpossessor of heaven and earth,” that I will
not take anything, not even a thread or a shoe-latchet
“that is thine”? Why not? “Lest thou shouldest say, 1
have made Abram rich.” Abram was not entirely averse
to accepting presents from heathen kings (cf. l2:16), but
in this case the patriarch could not consent to sharing in
the slightest measure the wealth of the impious Sodomites.
What a striking contrast to Lot’s selfish acts! No one
could deny that Abram had the privilege of keeping these
chattels as his due. “Abraham, however, cannot do such
a thing. He is not covetous; the thought of the acquisition
of wealth never entered into the undertaking of the ex-
pedition. But another weightier consideration enters into
the case: Abram desires to stand out clearly as a man who
prospers only because of God’s blessings. Hitherto this
status of his had been unmistakably clear; Abram had never
sought wealth, nor resorted to questionable methods of
getting it; nor had anyone contributed to his wealth.
Least of all could Abram accept a generous bestowal from
a man of the calibre of the King of Sodom, a purely sensual
materialist and idolater. The acceptance of the gift would
have impugned Abram’s spiritual standing. Consequently,
Abram summarily rejects the proposaly’ (EG, 467). Critics
have attempted to make contradictions here where every-
thing harmonizes, by contending that Abram who dis-
claimed a right to the spoils for his own use could not
therefore have bestowed a tenth on Melchizedek. “The
least bit of effort to understand would show that a religious
tenth reveals the same spirit as the refusal for personal
use.” As a matter of fact, the tenth belonged to Yahweh
at all times: to have kept it would have been robbing the
One who is the “possessor of heaven and earth.” “One
133

14: 17-24
natilral exception must be made: soinething of that which
was taken from the vanquished e, had to be used to
feed the deliverers. Abram want understood that he
felt justified in having appropriated. this much. His con-
federates, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, were, o
be bound by his own conscientious’ scruples. These men
were at liberty to make whatever adjustm
with the King of Sodom” (EG, 469.) .‘ There is little doubt
that Abram knew what kind of a character he was dealing
with in the person of the King of Sodom; hevknew full well
that this king would later distort the facts of ’the case in
such a way as to make the claim that. he had made Abram
wealthy, and the patriarch was not going to have any of
this. (3) The oath itself: “I have lifted up my hand to
Yahweh.’’ A common form of oath-taking (Deut. 32:40,
Ezek. 20:5-6; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5, 6; cf. Virgil’s Aeneid,
12, 195). Oaths have been employed from earliest times;
the purpose of an oath is explained in Heb. 6:16, “For
men swear by the greater; and in every dispute of theirs
’ the oath is final for confirmation.’’ Under ancient cus-
tomary law, the oath was rigidly held to be sacred, and
perjury was one of the most heinous crimes a man could
perpetrate. (HSB, 25): “In the Old Testament they were
employed for (1 ) confirming covenants (26:28; 3 1:44,
53) ; (2) resolving controversies in courts of law (Exo.
22:11, Num. 5:19) ; (3) guaranteeing the fulfillment of
promised acts or sacred duties (24:3, 4; 50:25; Num.
30:2, 2 Chron. 15:14). Believers have always been for-
bidden to take oaths in the name of idols or created things
(Josh. 23:7, Matt. 5:34-36, Jas. 5:12). God Himself used
an oath to show His immutability (22:16; Num. 14:28;
Heb. 6:17). But the Lord Jesus admonished believers to
fulfill their promises without the need of resorting to any
oaths, so their word would be as good as their bond (Matt.
5 : 3 4-3 7) .”
134

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 17-24
To sum up with Lange (CDHCG, 405): “As Abram
declares his iatiiiaate coi?zmmioiz with Melchizedek, and in-
troduces it into the very forms of expression of his religion,
so he utterly refuses aiiy coin,iizuizity of goods with the
King of Sodom. He reserves only what his servants had
already consumed in the necessities of war, and that part
of the spoil which fell to his three confederates, Aner,
Eshcol, and Mamre (Nuni. 3 1 :26, 1 Sam. 30:26) .” In
view of the foregoing array of facts, how utterly stupid
becomes the critical claim that v. 20, in which we are
told that Abram gave to Melchizedek a tithe of the re-
captured booty, contradicts v. 23, in which it is said that
Abram returned to the King of Sodom all the recaptured
booty, refusing to retain even a shoe-latchet for himself.
8. Reliability of the Narrative
It is repeatedly charged by the critics that the content
of chapter 14 is “an intrusive section within the patriarchal
framework,” and because (as they say) it cannot be identi-
fied with J, E or P, it must be ascribed to an isolated
source. To this critique we are bound to reply that-to
any unbiased person-the content of this chapter is defi-
nitely related to Old Testament history (1) in the fact that
it traces the ultimate destiny of Lot and his progeny (the
Moabites and Ammonites), as we shall see later (Gen.
19:30-38; Deut. 2:9, 19; Psa. 83:8) ; (2) in the fact that
it justifies the canonization of the book of Ruth, in which
the Messianic genealogy is carried forward through Ruth, a
Moabite maiden, to Obed, to Jesse, and then to David
(Ruth 1:4, 4:17; 1 Chron. 2:9-16, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:32).
It is commonplace of Old Testament prophecy that Messiah
should be of the royal lineage of David (Matt. 1:l; Isa.
9:7, 16:5; Psa. 1lO:l; Matt. 22:41-41, Mark 12:35-37,
Luke 20:41-44, John 7:42, Acts 2:34-35, Rom. 1:3, 2 Tim,
2:8, Heb. 1: 13; Rev. 5: 1, 22: 16). Moreover, the content
of Genesis 14 is inseparably linked with explanatory pas-
135

14: 17224 GENESIS * :* ,"
sages. in the New Testament: withQut it, these passages
would be maningless. (See Luke 17:28-32, 2 Pet. 2
Rom. 4:23-24, 1L:4; 2 Tim. 3:16?1Z), The f&ct
always be kept in mind that the Bible is a whole and a
unitary whole.
Hence, writes Speiser ( ABG,
re-examination of all the available s
internal and external, favors an early
in fact than the middle of the second
thing, the account is admittedly
let alone P. Who, then, could ad ari>interest in
learned speculations of this sort?,:? For another thing,
Sodom, Gomorrah, and three neighb.oring tdwnsh are still
very much in the picture . , . Most-important of all, the
names of the foreign invaders and their respective countries
are not made up. They have,,an authentic ring, in
spite of all the hazards of transliteration and transmission;
one of them at least (Arioch) takes us back to the Old
Babylonian age, with which the period of Abraham has to
be synchronized. . . . The geographic detail that marks
the route of the invaders, and the casual listings of the
Cities of the Plain, lend further support to the essential
credibility of the narrative. Who the foreign invaders
were remains uncertain. It is highly improbable, howeyer,
that they were major political figures. The mere fact
that Abraham could rout them with no more than 3~18
warriors at his disposal (the force is just small enough to
be realistic) would seem to suggest that the outlanders were
foreign adventurers bent on controlling the copper mines
south of the Dead Sea. The most likely date for such an
expedition would be approximately the eighteenth century
B.C. Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a
measure ofdkonfidence in its own right. He invokes an
authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would
be expected .to,do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to
136

ABRAHAM AND LOT 14: 17-24
Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable
apposition, which is no less appropriate in his particular
case. That later religious Hebrew literature should have
identified El-Elyon with Yahweh, quite probably on the
basis of this passage, is readily understandable. But this
appears to be the only late reflex of Gen. 14. The narra-
tive itself has all the ingredients of history.” (We cannot
help wondering why so many commentators seem to be
blind to the fact that Abram’s confederates furnished
troops, in addition to Abram’s own 3 18 men.)
Cornfeld testifies in like vein (AtD, S9) : “Abraham
and his band of ‘hanikhim’ (followers) corresponds almost
exactly to the chieftains of the early part of the second
millenium, with their ‘hanaku’ or ‘hnku.’ We know from
cuneiform texts in Mari, Ugarit, Alalah (a state north of
Ugarit) , and Boghazkoi (the Hittite kingdom) , that city-
states and tribes were linked by treaties or ‘covenants.’
Although the opponents of Abraham cannot be identified
with certainty, the personal names Tudhalia (Tidal in
Hebrew), Ariukka (Arioch) , and place names which have
been identified, fit well into the contemporary picture of
the 18th-17th centuries, One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, now
at the Hebrew University, has a passage elaborating on the
events, and containing many new geographical names east
of the Jordan, around the Dead Sea and Canaan proper.
This material gives Genesis 14 a new timelessness for the
modern reader. Few stories in Genesis have had so much
written about them. The antiquity of this story and the
accuracy of the names referred to in it are being constantly
corroborated as new background material becomes avail-
able.”
As a matter of fact, the general authenticity of the
Patriarchal narratives is in our day seldom called in ques-
tion by those who are familiar with the findings of‘ the
archqeologists. The historicity of the personages* and events
137

14: 17-24 GENESIS
related in Genesis Seems now to be fii.&ly established. Dr.
Albright (FSAC, SI) : “As critical study of the Bible is
more and more influenced by the rich new material
the ancient Near East, we shall s
for the historical significance of n
passages and details in the Old and
distinguished Orientalist, Dr. Ne
Union College, writes (RD, 31) :
plorer in Bible lands must be aware of the fact that as im-
portant as the Bible is for historical information, it is
definitely not primarily a chronicle of history, as we
understand that term today. It is above all concerned
with true religion and only secondarily with illustrative
records. Even if the latter had suffered through faulty
transmission or embellishments, the purity and primacy
of the Bible’s innermost message would not thereby be
diminished. As a matter of fact, it may be stated cate-
gorically that no archaeological discovery has ever con-
troverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological
findings have been made which confirm in clear outline
or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And,
by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions
has often led to amazing discoveries. They form tesserae
in the vast mosaic of the Bible’s almost incredibly correct
historical memory.”
This final testimony is from the pen of James Muilen-
burg, distinguished contributor to the Interpreter‘s Bible
(Vol. I, p. 296, “The History of the Religion of Israel”) :
“Archaeology has revealed an extraordinary correspondence
between the general social and cultural conditions por-
trayed in Genesis and those exposed by excavations. Dis-
coveries from such sites as Nuzi, Mari, and elsewhere,
provide the geographical, cultural, linguistic, and religious
background against which the stories of the patriarchs
are laid.”
138

TENTING TOWARD SODOM
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
Pitching One’s Tent Toward Sodom
Gen, 13:12
Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom. His choice was
determined solely by contemplated personal advaiitage, by
the prospect of a “more abundant” earthiy life: his highest
values were those of this present evil world. Greed, with
the prospect of ease and luxury, proved to be too alluring
for him to resist it. Having pitched his tent toward
Sodom, he finally went all the way and became a resident
of that den of iniquity. No matter to what extent his
“righteous soul” was “sore distressed” (2 Pet. 2:7-8) by
the lust and violence which all but engulfed him, he lacked
the moral stamina to get himself and his family out of it.
Flabbiness of character showed itself in everything he did.
The root of his tragedy was that his values were all distorted:
he did not know how to put first things first.
His life story reminds us of a similar tragedy portrayed in
Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesnzan. This tragic tale leaves
one emotionally depressed by its sordidness; nevertheless,
it does inculcate a tremendous moral lesson. The protagonist,
Willy Loman-a salesman whose escapist tendencies
blinded him to his real mediocrity-worshiped oiily one
god, the great god Success. In pursuing this false god, he
sacrificed his home and family, and he himself could find
ct
no exit” except by suicide. Such is always the tragic
end of one who pitches his tent toward Sodom, that is,
unless he “comes to himself” and resolutely comes back
to the Father’s house.
What happened to Lot happens to every man who
pitches his tent toward Sodom unless and until he heeds
the cry, “Come out of her, my people” (Rev. 18 :4). In
what ways, then, do men and women in our time pitch
their tents toward Sodom: They do it in various ways, as
follows: 1. By getting into the wrong crowd (Psa. 1:1;
139
,

GENESIS
Prov. 1:10, 4:14, 9:6; 2 Cor. 6:14-17; Eph. 1:11; 2 Thess.
3 : 16). 2. By assuming the posture of piety (piosity, religiosity)
, while conforming more and more to the ways
of the world (ecthe lust of the flesh and the lust of the
eyes and the vainglory of life,” 1 John 2:1f-17; cf. Rom.
12:2). 3. By neglecting the appointments of the Spiritual
Life (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:l-2; Rom. 6, 11:23-30; Heb.
1O:21). Where there is life, there is growth; where there
is no growth, the living thing stagnates and dies (Rom.
14:17, 2 Pet. 1:5-11, 3:18). 4. By turning from the Word
of God, the Foundation that stands sure and strong (2 Tim.
2: 19) to the vain babblings of human speculatian, “philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8;
1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:16).
What of parents who move from one community to
another without ever giving any thought as to what effects
the new environment will have on the moral character of
their children? How many put the demands of their
business or profession above the spiritual welfare of their
families? Are not these instances of pitching one’s tent
toward Sodom?
But the greatest tragedy of all is the fact that every
hman being, on reaching the age of discretion, pitches his
tent toward Sodom, Rom: 3:23--“alI have sinned, and
fall short of the glory of God.”
, Lot himself would have perished in Sodom had not
God Come to his rescue. Likewise, all sinners will eventually
perish in hell, unless they heed God’s call to repentance
. (Luke . 13:3, Matt. 25:46, Rev. 6:16-17).
I . , The
Jhiesthood of Christ
L ”
.6:2Q-ccJesus . , , having become a high priest
A Heb.
for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”
The ternis ,“Messiah”. &(Hebrew) , “Christos” (Greek) ,
and “Christ’( (English)., all mean “The Anointed One”.
Jesus the Christ (or Jesus Christ) is, then, The Anointed
140

TENTING TOWARD SODOM
of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim.
6:14-1J). It was the custom by Divine warrant in Old
Testament times to formally anoint into office those who
were called to be prophets, priests, and kings. See Exo.
28:41; Lev. 16:32; 1 Sam. 9:16, 15:1, 16:12-13; 1 Ki.
19:1J-16, etc. This anointing was emblematic of investi-
ture with sacred office, and of particular sanctification or
designation to the service of God. To anoint meant, says
Cruden, “to consecrate and set one apart to an office”
(s.v., Concordunce). The element used in the ceremony
of anointing was olive oil (Exo. 30:22-25). This “holy
anointing oil” was typical of the comforting and strength-
ening gifts and powers of the Holy Spirit.
To accept Jesus as Christ, therefore, is to accept Him
as prophet to whom we go for the Word of Life, to accept
Him as our great high priest who intercedes for us at the
right hand of the Father, and to accept Him as King from
whose will there is no appeal (because, of course, He wills
only our good). (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:5; John 8:31-32, 16:14-
15; Matt. 28:17; Eph. 1:19-23, 4:j; Col. 1:13-18, etc.).
According to the teaching of the Bible, there are
three Dispensations of true religion. (Religion is that
system of faith and practice by which man is bound anew
to God, from the root, lig, and the prefix, re, meaning to
“bind back” or “bind anew”,) Dispensations changed-
from the family to the national to the universal-as the
type of priesthood changed. The Patriarchal Dispensation
was the age of family rule and family worship, with the
patriarch (paternal head) acting as prophet (revealer of
God’s will) , priest (intercessor) and king, for his entire
living progeny. The Jewish Dispensation was ushered in
with the establishment of a national institution of ‘worship
(the Tabernacle, and later the Temple) and a national
priesthood (the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood) . The
Christian Dispensation had its beginsing with the abroga-
tion of the Old Covenant and ratification of the New, by
141

GENESIS
one and the same event-the death of Christ on the Cross
(although the Jewish institution was permitted to remain
as a social and civil institution some forty years longer,
that is, down to the Destruction of Jerusalem and the
dispersion of its people by the Roman armies, A.D. 70).
(Cf. John 1:17, Gal. 3:23-29, 2 Cor. 3:1-11, Col. 2:13-
15, and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, chs. 7, 8, 9,
lo). Under the Christian System all Christians are priests
unto God, and Christ is their High Priest (1 Pet. 2: 5, 9;
Rev. 5:10, Rom. 12:1-2, 8:34; Heb. 2:17, also chs. 3, Y,
7; 1 Tim. 2:5, 1 John 2:1, etc.) . It will be recalled that
Alexander Campbell referred to the Patriarchal Dispensa-
tion as the starlight age, to the Jewish Dispensation as the
moonlight age, to the special ministry of John the Im-
merser (to the Jewish nation) as the twilight age, and to
the present or Christian Dispensation (which may rightly
be designated also the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit) as
the sunlight age, of the unfolding of the divine Plan of
Redemption. These successive “ages,” therefore, embrace
the successive stages of the revelation of true religion, as
set forth in the Scriptures. Refusal to recognize this funda-
mental unity of the Bible as a whole can result only in
confusion, presumption, and, ultimately, eternal separa-
tion from God and all good (2 Thess. 1 :7-10).
The subject matter of the Epistle to the Hebrews
deals with the superiority of Christianity to Judaism, of
the New Covenant to the Old Covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34,
Heb., ch. 8). This is proved by the superiority of Christ,
the Son of God, ,to angels, to Moses, to the Levitical priest-
hood, etc. Judaizers, in,and out of the church, were con-
tending, it seems, that if Jesus was truly Messiah, as High
Priest He must“ have sprung from the tribe of Levi,
because that tribe alone had been set apart as Israel’s priest-
hood. But, said they, Jesus actually hailed from the tribe
of Judah, and. this fact disqualified Him for the priestly
office. The writer of the Epistle, replying to this argu-
142

TENTING TOWARD SODOM
inent, frankly admitted that the Lord Jesus did hail from
the tribe of Judah, the tribe from which no high priest was
ever supposed to come, according to the Old Testament
writings. But, said he, referring to Psa. 110:4, God Himself
declared in days of old (affirmed by an immutable
oath) that the Messiah’s High Priesthood should be after
the order of Melchizedelc, not after the order of the
Levitical or Aaronic priesthood; that, whereas the Levitical
priesthood was authenticated only by the power of a
carnal commandment, the priesthood of the Messiah, like
that of Melchizedek, was authenticated by the power of
an endless life; hence, that whereas the former was temporal
and imperfect, the latter was eternal and in every
respect perfect or complete. Moreover, the Messianic High
Priest, like Melchizedek of old who was King of Salem and
Priest of God Most High, was destined to combine in His
own Person both the Eternal Kingship and the Eternal
Priesthood. (See Hebrews, chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) This is
true simply because of the fact that our Lord Jesus, God’s
Only Begotten, is the First and the Last, the Alpha and
Omega, the Living One (Rev. 1:4, 8; 1:17-18; cf. John
1:1-14; Eph. 1:3-14, 2:11-22, 3:l-12; COI. 2:12-20;
1 Cor. 15:ZO-28, Phil. 2:1-11, etc,).
The priestly office is necessitated (1) by the differ-
ence in rank between the divine and the human, (2) by
the very structure of human nature and its needs. Man
has always felt the need of confession and intercession.
This is a recognized psychological fact: catharsis, the
draining off of one’s burdens by sharing them with a
trusted friend is the first step in the psychoanalytic cure;
every minister of the Gospel and every physician knows
this to be true. If a famished man is not supplied with
food, he will seize anything within his reach; and if the
wants of the soul are not lawfully satisfied, the soul will
seek unlawful and unholy gratification. If Christ does
not fils the heart, some iizonstrous idol 01‘ sonze huiwan
143

GENESIS
priest (or even some supreme object of devotion sz~cb as
Pmty or Cause, to the monolithic Leninist) will fill it.
People need a confessor and intercessor. And if they do
not learn to make God their Confessor, prayer their confessional,
and Christ Jesus their Intercessor, they will heap
to themselves a human confessional and a human priesthood,
and so degrade true religion into supersition.
A true priest must possess three qualities or excellences:
1. He must have authority. Authority is moral power,
and moral power is right, that is, the right to possess
something, to do something, or to require something to
be done. Who, then, truly has this power? Not the
Jewish priests of old, because they were compassed about
with infirmities. They had no authority to forgive sin in
any sense of the term: all the High Priest of Israel could
do was to go into the Holy of Holies on each Day of
Atonement and offer sacrifices for the people; but even
this did not procure the forgiveness of their sins. God
merely laid them over, put them out of His Mind, so to
speak, until the next Day of Atonement; and so the weight
of human sin, laid over from year to year, grew into what
ritably a crushing burden until the one Sin-offering
was made once for all, on the Cross of Calvary (Hebrews,
ch. 9). John 1:29-note the singular here, “the Lamb of
God that taketh away the sin of the world.”
Who has this moral power?
Not the priests of either
pagan or papal Rome. ,They are men, and their assump-
tion of it is a monstrous imposition upon the credulity of
the masses. Jesus expressly forbids our calling anyane
“Father” in a spiritual, sense, except our Father in Heaven
(Matt. 23:9) : He alone is entitled to be addressed as “Holy
Father” (John 17:Il; 25).
Who, then, does have this authority (moral power) to
forgive sin, to, be intercessor for the saints? Only one
Person has it-Jesus of Nazareth: “He hath this priest-
hood unchangeable”; He alone “is able to save to the
144

TENTING TOWARD SODOM
uttermost them that draw near unto God through him”
(Heb. 7:24-21) ; He alone “ever liveth to make interces-
sion for” His saints, This authority is His by virtue of
WHO HE IS, The Living One: He who is alive for ever-
more; He is without beginning or end (Rev. 1:1, 4, 8,
17-18; John 8:58), and therefore His power is that of an
endless life (Heb. 7: 16). While in the flesh He exercised
this moral power as He saw fit (cf. Luke 5:17-26, 23:39-
43); now that He is Acting Sovereign of the universe
and Absolute Monarch of the Kingdom of God, He alone
has the right to intercede for His people at the Right
Hand of God the Father (Mark 16:19, 14:62; Luke 22:69;
Acts 2:33, 5:31, 7:11; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20-23; Heb.
1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). All authority (moral
power) has been given unto Him in heaven and on earth
(Matt. 28:18); and He must reign until He has put all
His enemies, including death itself, under His feet for ever
(1 Cor, 15:20-23, Phil. 2:9-11; 2 Cor. 5:4).
2. The true priest must be characterized by purity.
This fact manifests itself in our desire for the prayers of
a good man in times of trouble; even a dying man would
summon all his energies to spurn the prayer of a hypocrite
offered in his behalf; such a prayer is an abomination to
God and to man (Jas. 5:16; Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46-49;
John 15:16; Col. 3:17). “A preacher is not a priest,
except as every Christian man is a priest; but he is called
upon to discharge certain priestly functions, to comfort
the sorrowful, support the weak, pray with the dying; and
the demand for his personal purity is as righteous as it is
instinctive and universal.” The Jewish high priest wore
on his forehead a plate of pure gold, on which was en-
graved, “Holiness to the Lord,” God thus affirming the
holiness of his ministry.
Now our High Priest alone meets this demand for
personal purity. Heb. 7:26--“Such a high priest became
us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and
145

GENESIS
made higher than the heavens.” Note the saying, Such a
High Priest is becoming to us, that is, appropriate, befitting.
Not that it is fortuitous that we have such a
High Priest, but that it is necessury: no other could fill
the office of the eternal Priesthood. Consider, then, the
High Priest of our Christian profession. “Living on
earth, yet undefiled with sin; keeping company with the
outcast, but only to bless and save them. Our purity is
soon lost; we leave it in our cradles. We lay off our
innocence with our child garments. But the Son of Man
lived a holy and undefiled life. How beautiful! How
wonderful! that human life of pain, hunger, sorrow,
thorns, temptation, and death, without sin!” (Heb. 2:18,
4:14-15, 10:19-25).
3. The true priest must be chuyacterized by sympathy.
Perhaps cornpassion would be the better word: pity for
the undeserving and the guilty (cf. Luke 23:34, Acts
7:60). “We need a priest who can be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities. He must be pure, to appear
before God. He must be filled with all human sympathies,
to win our love and bear our burdens.” It is the human
heart of Jesus that qualifies Him for the eternal priest-
hood. “It behooved him in all things to be made like unto
his brethren,” that is, to take upon Himself their human
nature, “that he might become a merciful and faithful high
priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation
for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2: 14-18). “These words
declare, not simply that he was made in all things like unto
his brethren, but that it was necessary that he should be
made in all things like unto his brethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest.” It was absolutely
necessary for Him to assume our human nature and ex-
perience its frailities, in order to qualify for this eternal
Priesthood. Heb. 13 :8--“ Jesus Christ is the same yester-
day, and today, and for ever.” Men sympathize with
own class or kind, but the rich can hardly
146

TENTING TOWARD SODOM
sympathize with the poor, the learned with the ignorant,
adults with children and youth. “Let every tempted and
struggling child be taught to go boldly to Christ, and
find mercy and grace in the time of need. We need not
be afraid to trust the faith of the child because he cannot
appreciate the evidences of the divine origin of the Gospel.
Salvation is in the Gospel, not in its evidences. Life is in
the air we breathe, and not in any knowledge of its causes
and chemistry.” Our High Priest sympathized with all
who needed mercy and salvation: with frail and impulsive
Simon Peter; with the sisters of Bethany, Martha and
Mary, at the grave of Lazarus; with the woman taken in
the act of adultery (no doubt a victim of the social evils
of her day); with the publican Zaccheus; with all who
needed the true Burden Bearer of all time. Our High
Priest, while in the flesh, was often tired and hungry;
suffered loneliness such as only His sensitive soul could
suffer; felt despair, as when He cried out on the Cross,
“My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He was tempted
in all points as we are, and yet without sin. His sympathy
is for all humankind, not for their sins, but for their
frailities and struggles. (Cf. Psa. 103 :13-18).
He knows all our sorrows.
He knows all our strug-
gles. He knows all our frustrations. He knows all our
problems. He is our great High Priest who knoweth all
our infirmities. The trouble with us is that we will not
come uizto Hiw that we may have all these blessings.
What hope can we have of heaven without such a High
Priest? What hope does the man have who ignores Him,
who rejects the only salvation ever offered, the only Atonement
provided, the only Intercession available? If we who
are in Christ so often feel our unworthiness so much that
we question whether we shall ever be able to attain, what
must be the sad condition of the one who does not even
make the effort, the one who proudly asserts his own good- 5
147

GENESIS
ness instead of reclining on the grace and advocacy of
Christ? “If the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall
the ungodly and sinner appear?” (1 Pet. 4: 18).
(The quotes appearing above are from a sermon by
John Shackelford, in Biogruphies and Sermons of Pioneer
Preachers, edited by Goodpasture and Moore, Nashville,
Tenn. 1954.)
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART TWENTY-SEVEN
1,. Where did Abram stop at first on his return to
Canaan?
2. What is indicated by the statement that “Abram
called on the name of Yahweh”?
3. What caused the separation of Abram and Lot?
What choice did Lot make?
4. What tragedy is in the statement that Lot “pitched
his tent toward Sodom”?
5. What did Lot probably see when he “lifted up his
eyes”?
6. Describe the Plain of the Jordan.
7. What was the blessing which Abram received from
Yahweh at this time?
8. To what place did Abram now move, the place where
he pitched his third tent?
9. What more do we.learn about this place near Hebron
which became Abram’s more or less settled place of
a bode ?
10. Name the Cities of the Plain.
notorious?
For what were they
11. What economic advantages were controlled by these
cities in early times?
12. What geological and topographical changes evidently
took place in this Plain of the Jordan probably about
the beginning of the second millenium?
148

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
20.
22.
23.
24.
2J*
2 6.
TENTING TOWARD SODOM
Who were the kings who invaded from the East?
What may have been the economic factor in this
invasion?
What is a inidrash? For what reasons must we reject
this view of the Battle of the Kings and Abram’s role
in these events?
What route was taken by the invaders from the East?
On what grounds do we accept this as historically
valid?
How explain Abram’s pursuit and victory with a
force of 318 men? Was this his entire force? Who
were his allies?
How account for the representation that the Dead
Sea was not yet in existence?
What and where was the Salt Sea? The Valley of
Siddim? What light has been thrown on this problem
by Glueck’s archaeological findings?
Identify as closely as possible the cities or kingdoms
from which the Eastern kings came.
What peoples are mentioned as living along the highway
by which the Eastern invaders came?
Who were the Anakim, the Horites, the Amalekites,
the Amorites?
What was the result of the Battle of the Kings in
the Vale of Siddim?
What was the fate of the King of Sodom and his
allies? What did they and their armies do to escape
destruction?
What further move did Lot make after pitching his
tent toward Sodom?
What did this last move indicate as to Lot’s spiritual
state? How does the Apostle Peter describe Lot’s
attitude at this time?
Describe Abram’s rescue of Lot. How far to the
North did he go to effect the rescue?
149

27.
28.
29.
3 0.
3 1.
32.
33.
3 4.
3 5.
3 6.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45 *
GENESIS
How reconcile the statements in verses 10 and 17
concerning the king of Sodom?
What was the King’s Vale?
What two offices did Melchizedek hold? How does
this typify Christ’s ministry?
Explain “King of Salem,” “Priest of God Most High.”
Explain the significance of the name El Elyon.
Is there any reason for denying that a strain of Semitic
monotheism had persisted from the beginning of the
human race? What does Gen. 4:26 mean?
What similarity is indicated here between the God of
Abraham and the God of Melchizedek?
What facts do we have confirming the historicity of
this incident?
How does the writer of Hebrews describe Melchizedek,
in ch. 7:Z-3?
What is Milligan’s interpretation of this ascription of
timelessness to Melchizedek? What are the objections
to this view?
What, according to John Owen, are the proofs of the
greatness of Melchizedek?
What is indicated by Melchizedek’s proffer of bread
and wine? What is not indicated?
What is the significance of Melchizedek’s twofold
blessing?
What evidence is there to support the view that
Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of the
Messiah Himself?
How explain the King of Sodom’s “generosity” on
this occasion? ’
What was Abram’s reply to the King’s offer?
What was Abram’s oath and why did he make it?
What was signified by his. lifting up his hand?
ve ‘Abram the aright to appropriate a tenth
of the s$oils? ‘
150

46,
47.
48,
49 *
5 0.
51.
52.
J3.
54.
55.
5 6.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
TENTING TOWARD SODOM
What gave him the right to divert part of the spoils
as repayment to his own and allied forces?
What relation does the content of ch. 14 bear to the
history of God’s Old Testament people?
What does Speiser say as to the general authenticity
of this narrative?
What is Cornfeld’s testimony as to the general authenticity
of the Patriarchal narratives?
What is Albright’s testimony about this matter? What
is Nelson Glueck’s testimony?
What usually happens to men who pitch their tents
toward Sodom?
In what ways do men in all ages do this?
In what specific details was Melchizedek a type of
Christ ?
What does the writer of Hebrews tell us about the
High Priesthood of Jesus?
What is the full significance of the titles Messiah,
Christos, Christ?
Explain how Dispensations changed with changes of
priesthood.
In what sense are all Christians priests unto God in
the present Dispensation?
Explain how our Lord is priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek.
How did the priesthood of the Jewish Dispensation
differ from that of the Patriarchal Dispensation?
What are the three necessary qualifications for a
priest?
Is there any authority in Scripture for a special priesthood
in our Dispensation?
What does our Lord say about calling any man
“Father” in a spiritual sense of the term? Who alone
is addressed as “Holy Father” in the New Testament
and where is the passage found in which this occurs?
151

PART TWENTY-EIGHT 1
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
DIVINE ELABORATION OF THE
PROMISE AND THE COVENANT
(Ch. 15)
1. The Biblical Account (ch. 15)
1. After these things the word of Jehovah came uato
Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy
shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2 And Abrm
said, 0 Lord Jehovah, what wilt thou give me, seeing I
go childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is
Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me
thou bast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house
is mine heir. 4 And, behold, the word of Jebtovah came
unto him, saying, This man shall izot be thine heir; but
he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall
be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said,
Look no& toward heaven, and number the stars, if thou
be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall
thy seed be. 6 And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned
it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am
Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Cbaldees, to
giwe thee this land to inherit it. 8 And he said, 0 Lord
Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? 9
And he said unto him, Take me a heifer thee years old,
and a she-goat three -years old; and a ram thee years old,
and a turtle-dove, and a young Pigem. 20 And he took
him all these, and'djvided them in the midst, and laid each
half over against the. other: but the birds divided he not.
11 and the birds of:.prey came down Upon the carcasses
and Abrav drove khem away.
12 Aqda when the sun was goixzg down, a deep slee4
and,. lo, a horror of great darkness fell
Abram, Know of a surety
in a land that is noit theirs,
152

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT
and shall serve them; and they shall Gfflict them four
hwndred years; 14 and also that n,ation whom they shall
serve, will I judge: an,d afterward shall they come out with
great mbstawe. 1j But thou shalt go to thy fathers in
peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 And in
the fourkh generation ihey shall conie hither again: for
the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. 17 And it came
to pass, that, when the sicn went down, and it was dark.,
behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that
passed between these pieces. 18 In that day Jehovah made
a covenant with Abram, saying, Uizto thy seed hwe I
given this land, from the river of Egypt anto the great
river, the river Euphrates: 19 the Kenitc, and the Kenizzite,
and the Kadmoizite, 20 aizd the Hittite, and the Perizzik,
and the Rephaim, 21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite
and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.
2. The Un,ity of Chapter 1~
The analytical critics have tried to tear this chapter
into shreds from three points of view, namely, 1. That
there is discrepancy in respect to time. According to v.
5, it is in the night and the stars are visible; but vv. 7-11
imply that it is in the day; in v. 12a, the sun is setting, and
in ver. 17, it has gone down. Green (UBG, 202-203):
“But it is not easy to see how anyone can imagine a diffi-
culty here. The transaction described required time. The
vision (v, 1) occurred in the night or in the early morn-
ing when the stars still appeared in the sky (v. 5). A
fresh communication was made to Abram (vv. 7 ff.)
which, whether it followed the preceding one immediately
or after an interval, contained directions that could only
be executed in the daytime. Five animals were to be taken
and slain, properly prepared and divided, and the parts
suitably adjusted. This would occupy a portion of the
day, and during the remainder of it he guarded the pieces
from the birds of prey, Then came sunset with the pro-
153

1 5 : 1-21 GENESIS I
phetic disclosure (vv. 12-1 6) , and finally darkness with
the symbolic ratification of the covenant, The narrative
is consistent throughout and develops regularly from first
to last.” 2. That a vision is announced in v. 1, but it cannot
possibly be continued through the chapter, Green
(ibid., 203): “Knobel thinks the vision does not begin till
v. 12, and ends with v. 16. This is plainly a mistake; the
communication in v. 1 is espressly said to have been made
in a vision. Whether all the communications in the chapter
were similarly made, and only vv. 10, 11 belong to
Abram’s ordinary state, or whether the vision is limited to
vv. 1-6, as Wellhausen supposes, it may be difficult to determine,
and it is of no account as nothing is dependent
on the mode in which the revelation was given.” 3. That
v. 8 is inconsistent with v. 6. In the latter Abram is said
to have believed the Lord; and yet he asks in the former for
a visible token of the truth of God’s word.” Green (ibid.,
203) : “But this request does not indicate doubt or distrust,
but rather a desire for a more complete assurance and a
fresh confirmation of his faith in the fulfilment of promises
so far transcending all natural expectation.” (ibid., p.
208) : “It is plain enough that no partition of the chapter
has been found possible. The signs of its composite character
are hard to discover. Its lack of conformity to any
one of the so-called documents discredits these documents,
not the unity of the chapter.” (But-can any measured
time sequence be ascribed to prophetic vision?) Again,
we have an instance in which the ultra-intellectualized
mentality is unable to see the forest for the trees: unfortunately,
this defect is, in most cases, a manifestation of
the will to find discrepancies (where none actually exist)
for the ultimate purpose of discrediting the trustworthiness
of the Bible.
The content of this chapter (15) divides naturally
into four parts: Sign, the Oracle, and the
Covenant.
154

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1J:l-4
3 Abranz’s “Dialogue” wifb Gad (vv. 1-4).
Leupold (EG, 470): “In a very particular sense this
is a monumental chapter, monumental in the testimony
that it bears to saving truth. It is for this reason that
Paul alludes to a word from this chapter when he estab-
lishes the truth concerning salvation (Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6).
It is nothing short of amazing to find in the patriarchal
age so clear-cut an answer to the question: How can a man
be justified in the sight of God? The way of salvation
was one and the same in the old covenant as well as in the
new.” (That is, by the obedience of faith to the terms
prescribed by the Divine Will in either case.) Skinner
(ICCG, 280) rightly refers to his incident( esp. v.6) as a
“remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justifi-
cation by faith” (cf. Rom. 4:3,9, 22; Gal. 3:6).
V. l-“fhe word of Yahweh.” The first occurrence of
this remarkable phrase, afterward so common in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Exo. 9:20, Num, 3:16, Deut. 34:Y, 1 Sam.
3 : 1, Psa. 3 3 : 6, et passim) , “That this was a personal desig-
nation of the pre-incarnate Logos, if not susceptible of
complete demonstration, yet receives not a little sanction
from the langauge employed throughout this narrative (cf.
vv. 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, etc.) At least the expression denotes
‘the Lord manifesting himself by speech to his servant’ ”
(Whitelaw, PCG, 216; Murphy, MG, 295). Note that
the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, that is, a
night vision, not in a dream (cf. v. 5). Whitelaw (ibid.,
2 16) : “Biblically viewed, the vision, as distinguished from
the ordinary dream, defines the presentation to the bodily
senses or to the mental consciousness, of objects usually
beyond the sphere of their natural activities; hence, visions
might be imparted in dreams (Num. 12:6) or in trances
(Num. 24:4, 16, 17).”
V. 1--“Fear 7z0t, Abram,” etc. Was this fear anxiety
about his defenseless position among the surrounding Ca-
1SJ

15:1, 2 GENESIS x : % e ‘ A ~ 7 - -:
naanite tribes, many of whom prqba,bly were growing
envious of his increasing power and prosperity, and by the
possibility-certainly not to be ruled out-of a retribution
descending on him from the Easternipcxwers? Or, was it a
kind of mental dejection-not necessarily distrust of God,
but melancholy-caused by the fac * his continuing to
remain childless? Skinner (ICCG, -279) : “To ‘die childless
and leave no name on earth (Num. -27.4) __ is a fate so
melancholy that even the assurance ;of ’present fellowship
with God brings no hope or joy.” This: was considered a
tragedy indeed, in the thinking of. the ancient .world!
Leupold et all affirm that this “fear,of* remaining childless
is what Abram and the Lord alone Eefer to.” With this
view we are inclined to agree, from. the fact that this
constitutes the subject matter of the’ “dialogue” that follows
between Abram and Yahwe. Note the divine reassurance,
v. 1--“I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.”
Murhpy (MG, 293) : “The‘ word ‘I’ is separately
expressed, and therefore emphatic, in the original. I, JE-
HOVAH, the Self -existent, the Author of existence, the
Performer of promise, the Manifester of myself to man,
and not any creature however exalted. This was something
beyond a seed, or a land, or any temporal thing. The
Creator infinitely transcends the creature. The mind of
Abram is here lifted up to the spiritual and the eternal.
1. Thy shield. 2. Thy exceeding great reward. Abram has
two fears-the presence of evil, and the absence of good.
Experience and conscience had begun to teach him that
both of these were justly his doom. But Jehovah has
chosen him, and here engages Himself to stand between
him and all harm, and Himself to be to him all good. With
such a shield from all evil, and such a source of all good, he
need not be afraid. The Lord, we see, begins, as usual, with
the immediate and the tangible: but he propounds a
principle that reaches to the eternal and the spiritual. Me
156

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15:173
have here the opening germ of the great doctrine of ‘the
Lord our righteousness,’ redeeming us on the one hand from
the sentence of death, and on the other to a title to eternal
life.’’ “In tbe vision the intelligent observer passes from the
merely sensible to the supersensible sphere of reality.” (SIB,
236) : “Fear not, indulge no slavish or excessive terror on
account of thine enemies, wants, or dangers, or on account
of the awful appearances of God, ha. 4.3 : 1, 41 : 10; Matt.
28:5; Rev. 1:17-18. 1 a7n thy shield, infalliably to protect
thee, Psa. 3:3, 84:11, 91:4, and thy exceeding great but
gracious reward of thy piety and love, giving myself, in all
that I am and have, to thee, as thine everlasting all and in
all, Prov. 11:18; Psa. 19:11, 16:5-6, 42:5; Deut. 33:26-
29, ha. 41:lO; 1 Cor. 3:22, 15-28, 58; Col. 2:9-10.’’
Abram’s Reply (v. 2, 3). What avails it in the way of
external prosperity and comforts, as long as I have no
child of my own, but only this Syrian servant, Eliezer of
Damascus, to be my heir? Again (SIB, 236): “The full
force and meaning of Abram’s words can only be seen by
considering his position in connection with the promise
originally given to him. He was not only childless, but to
all human appearance hopelessly so. God had promised him
that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude.
As yet there was no sign, as he thought, no hope of its
fulfilment. Consequently, when the Lord now says, ‘I
am thy shield,’ etc., Abraham replies in the bitterness of
hopelessness, ‘What wilt thou give me? What can make
up for the want of a child?’ ‘The heir of my house is this
Damascus-Eliezer-my slave must be my heir.’ Abram’s
complaint amounts to just this: All gifts and promises are
nothing to me since a child is withheld.” Special notice
should be taken of Abram’s form of address here: “0 Lord
Jehovah.’’ This is the first time the name Adonai appears
in the divine records. This address, comments Leupold
(EG, 473), “represents a very respectful and reverent ad-
157

3 1 5 :3-5 GENESIS
dress .and shows Abram as one. -.was , by no means
doubtful of Gad’s omnipotence. at the same time,
Abram voices the natural misgivings of the limited human
understanding.” Certainly this Station God Himself
recognized: hence His reiteration the subject-matter of
12:2-3 and 13:16, coupled with a-reply to Abrarn’s particular
complaint. 3 .
4. The Divine Promise of un Heir (yv. 4-6). .
(HSB, 25) : “The concern of Abraham here is made
intelligible by the Nuzi tablets, From. these tablets we
learn that childless couples used to adopt a slave on cgndition
that he would care for them ddnd,give them a proper
burial. If a natural son should be born later, the slave
heir was disinherited to a great ettent,*’’ Speiser (ABG,
112) : “We know now that in Hucrian family law, which
was also normative for the patriawhs, two types of heir
were sharply distinguished. One was the u$Zu or direct
heir; and the other was the ewuru or indirect heir, whom
the law recognized when normal inheritors were lacking.
Such an ewuw could be a member of a collateral line, and
at times even an outsider, depending on the circumstances.
Consequently, our Dammesek Eliezer-whoever he may
have been and whatever the first word might mean-was
juridically in the position of an ewuru. Here, then, is
another instance of Hurrian customs which the patriarchs
followed, but which tradition and its latet expounders were
bound to find perplexing.” V. 6 surely indicates that a
servant by the name of Eliezer, apparently a Damascene
by birth, was the only propsctive heir to Abram’s estate.
It is significant to note that the divine promise was specific:
Yahwe declared explicitly that, not Eliezer, but the one
who would isszte from Abrum’s own body would be his
heir. Thus Abram’s unwillingness to part with the hope
that the Promise, however seemingly impossible, would
eventually be realized, the unwillingness “which caused him
so pathetically to call the Divine attention to his childless
158

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15 : 5 , 6
condition,” was recognized and rewarded by Yahwe’s assur-
ance that the Promise would not go unfulfilled--“an assur-
ance that must have thrilled his anxious heart with joy.”
S. The Accoinpanying Sign (vv. li, 6).
Apparently without any request on Abram’s pare,
Yahweh then proceeds to confirm the Promise with a sign:
“and he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now
toward heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to
number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.”
That is, since no man can put himself into a position such
as to be able to count the number of the stars, it follows
that Abranz’s Posterity likewise would be iimumerable.
(Cf. again 12:2, 13:16.) V. 6-And Abram “believed in
Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness.”
One of the greatest words in the Old Testament is found
here for the first time in Scripture; it is the word rendered
“believe,” a word which essentially means cctrusty’: “the
author would indicate that the permanence of this attitude
is to be stressed; not only, Abraham believed just this once,
but, Abram proved constant in his faith” (Leupold, EG,
477). So now, when God asks Abram to carry out certain
orders, Abram unhesitatingly obeys, and this attitude is
demonstration of his faith. But even more is revealed here:
God’s response to Abram’s implicit obedience shows that
the patriarch met with God’s favor (grace is unmerited
favor); he was justified; his faith had been counted to
him for righteousness. And now, in the verses following,
we see the promise and the Sign issuing forth in the
Covenant.
God reckoned this abiding trust to Abram as right-
eousness. rrRighteousness is here a right relationship to
God, and it was conferred by the divine sentence of ap-
proval in response to Abram’s trust in God’s character.
In Deut. 6:2J, 24:13, this righteousness is attained by
obedience to the law. Here Abraham, who had no law to
fulfill, was nevertheless made righteous because of his inner
159

lf:6 GENESIS * ,
attitude, a position which is approxilmated in Psa. 24:Ii and
to a lesser degree in Psa. 106:31” (-IBG, 600). (JB, 31) :
“The faith of Abraham is an a-ct of trust in a promiie
which, humanly speaking, ’could never. be realized. God
acknoweldges that this act is worthy‘ of reward (Deut.
24:13, Psa. 106:3 1), accrediting it: to Abraham’s ‘righteousness,’
namely, to that sum of integrity and humble
submission which makes a man pleasing,to God. St. Paul
uses this text to prove that justification depends on faith
and not on the works of the Law; but since Abraham’s
faith was the mainspring of his conduct, St. James is able
to cite this same text when he wishes to condemn ‘dead’
faith, i.e., faith without the works that spring from it.”
(Cf. Rom., ch. 4, James 2:14-26). Righteousness is “the
equivalent of measuring up to the demands of God.” Righteousness
here, as elsewhere in Scripture, means Literally
justification, that is, divinely accepted as just, good, or
righteous; it follows from loving obedience to God’s way
of doing things (as distinct from self’s way of doing things
(cf. Matt. 3:1 j), Leupold (EG, 478) : “What God demands
and expects of a sinful mortal is faith. He that
has faith measures up to God’s requirements, is declared
to have manifested the normal attitude pleasing to God;
against such a one God has no wrath or displeasure. He
counts him innocent; He gives him a verdict of ‘not
guilty.’ ” “Under the old coyenant salvation was the gift
of the grace of God through faith as it is under the new
covenant. In Romans (ch. 4) the Apostle Paul uses
Abraham as an example of one whose faith, and not his
works, justified him. Indeed, he argues that Abraham
was justified before he was circumcised, a seal that follows
faith, not precedes it” (HSB, 26). Cornfeld (AtD) : “It
was the tribal practice to enter into a personal relationship,
namely a covenant or agreement, with the deity, so that
God would devote himself to the covenanters, in return
xclusive agreement with him.
This was not an
160

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15:6, 7
agreement between equals, but as between a great ruler
and those who promise to be his loyal subjects. So the
divine protector was known to Abraham as ‘Your Shield’
(1 5: 1) , whereby Abraham was to recognize and worship
no other deity and God was to protect and seek the welfare
of Abraham and his family exclusively. . . . This close-
ness of man to God was a social phenomenon which will
be illustrated shortly in the dialogue between God and
Abraham over the fate of Sodom (Gen. 18). It is im-
portant to note that in Israel’s tradition of the divine
covenant, the role of the patriarchs was twofold: (a) They
stood in a covenantal relation to the Lord Yahweh; (b)
They lived by faith on the one hand and experienced the
faithfulness of God on the other. One point of the pa-
triarchal narratives and their arrangement is to teach what
the Bible meant by faith; an illustration is the description
of Abraham as ‘father of faith.’ This will make clear a
most significant statement explaining Abraham’s attitude:
‘And he believed the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as
righteousness’ ( 1 5 : 6) , This implies that God required
just that man should choose Him to be his God. Biblical
Hebrew, be it noted, has no word for ‘religion.’ The true
religion is designated as the ‘fear of God’ (or Yahweh) .”
6. The Divine Promise of the Land and the Accom-
Panyhzg Sign (vv. 7-1 1).
On this occasion the Almighty not only solemnly
assures His servant that he shall sire a son himself, an earnest
of a seed as numerous as the stars in the heavens; but He
also reiterates the Divine promise of the Land of Promise,
namely, that the land on which the patriarch walks shall
be his progeny’s inheritance (cf. 12: 1, 13 : 14-17). Abram
asks in reply, By what proof shall I know that I shall
possess the land; that is, May I have some intimation as to
the time and mode of entering upon possession of it? “0
Lord Jehovah”: “Again the same reverent address as in
161

15 ;2-7 GENESIS
v. 2, in token of his faith in God‘s-’ability to perform
what He promises. But this faith s legitimate tokens;
it is anxious to have still fuller assu . So Abram asks,
not in a spirit of doubt but with the purpose to be more
solidly established in its con~iction.’~ The sign Abram
asks for is in reference to concrete possession in the here
and now: a perfectly reasonable and legitimate request,
under the circumstances. (Cf, Gideon’s prayer, Judg.
6:17 ff.; also Mary’s question, Luke 1’:34.) In reply, God
condescends to show him that a covenailt is to be estab-
lished, and tells him what must be done on his part.‘ (Note
again Cornfeld’s explanation in the paragraph above.) He
bade the patriarch take a heifer, a ram and a she-goat, each
three years old, together with a turtle-dove and a young
pigeon, and after dividing each of them except the birds,
to lay them piece by piece over against the other. This
seems to have been the ancient procedure in the matter of
establishing covenants, especially among the Chaldeans.
Having divided the animals (cut each in two, cf. Jer.
34: 18-19), the contracting parties would pass between the
halves; this may have implied that a similar lot-that is,
being killed-was to befall their own cattle in the event
of their violating the covenant. However, in this case,
there was a significant modification: the contracting
parties were not to pass between the halves, nor is the threat
implied in anything that was aone. In this case, Abram
did as the Lord had ordered him, slew the victims, and
laid the divided parts in order. Then from morning until
evening he watched them, and from time to time drove
away the birds of prey which hovered over them. The
proceeding in this instance, therefore, was not a sacrifice,
even though the victims killed were later incorporated in
the Mosaic ritual of sacrifice; rather, it was that aspect of
the covenantal relationship which manifested the faith of
the worshiper.
162

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT lj:6, 7
It should be noted, in this connection, that the Amor-
ites of the Mari documents used asses for this kind of
ritual, with the result that “to slay an ass” was in their
terminology idiomatic for “to enter into a compact.’) It
was this prominence of the ass in pagan cults that caused
the Israelites to proscribe that animal in their own ritual
sacrifices (Exo. 13:13, 34:20). Archaeologists tell us also
that the Hurrians (Horites) of Nuzi resorted on solemn
occasions to a combination of “one bull, one ass, and ten
sheep.” Turtle doves and pigeons are mentioned repeated-
ly in connection with the ritual provisions laid down in
the book of Leviticus (1422). (HSB, 26) : “Cutting the
animals in halves may have been part of the normal custom
or ritual at a covenant sealing. The Hebrew of 15:18
reads that God ‘cut a covenant’ with Abraham. For a long
time Old Testament scholars doubted the accuracy of this
expression, but texts have been uncovered in Quatna and
Mari informing us that covenants were sealed by some
ritual invo1,ving the cutting up of asses.” Cf. JB, 31:
“Ancient ritual of covenant (Jer. 34: 18) : the contracting
parties passed between the parts of the slain animal and
called down upon themselves the fate of the victim should
they violate the agreement. The flame symbolizes Yahweh
(cf. the burning bush, Exo. 3:2, the pillar of fire, Exo.
13 :21; the smoke of Sinai, Exo. 19 : 19) ; He alone passes
between the parts because His Covenant is a unilateral
pact, the initiative is His; cf. 9:9 ff.” (The covenant with
Noah was likewise a unilateral covenant). (Some com-
mentators hold that this covenant was bilateral (as de-
scribed in ch. 15) because Abram passed between the parts
when he placed them in proper order.)
Is any symbolic significance to be attributed to the
respective animals used in this covenantal response by
Abrain? (JB, 3 1) : “The birds of prey were a bad omen
(cf. 40:17 ff.) signifying the miseries of Israel’s bondage
in Egypt; the dispersal of the birds symbolizes her de-
163

15:7, 8 GENESIS
liverance.” (Cf, Virgil’s Aeneid, ff.) Murhpy (MG,
298): When Abram asks for so timation as to the
time and manner of entering int ssion of the Pro&-
ised Land, “the Lord directs him ready the things
requisite for entering into a f enant regarding
the land. These include all kinds OX animals afterward used
in sacrifice. The number three is ’sacre
perfection of the victim in point ‘ofbm
sion of the animals refers to the, cbvenant between two
parties, who participate in the ri
The birds are two without bein
them uwuy (i.e., the birds of prey). As the animals slain
and divided represent the only mean and way through
which the two parties can meet in a covenant of peace,
they must be preserved pure and unmutilated for the end
they have to serve.” Skinner (ICCG, 281) : “The prepara-
tion for the covenant ceremony; although not strictly
sacrificial, the operation conforms to later Levitical usage
in so far as the animals are all such as were allowed in
sacrifice, and the birds are not divided, Lev. 1:17.”
Note the elaborate symbolism suggested, SIBG, 23 6-
237: “Ver. 8-15, Moved by the Spirit of God, Abraam
asked this sign. The beasts he presented to God were
emblems of his seed; the heifer prefigured them in their
patience, labour, and proneness to backsliding, Hos. 4: 16;
the gout, in their mischievousness and lust, Jer. Y:7-9; the
rum, in their strength and fortitude, Num. 24:s-9; the
doves, in their simplicity and harmlessness in their purest
state, ha. 74:19. The division of the four-footed animals
(1) represented the torn condition of his seed, by the divi-
sion of the kingdom, etc., 1 Ki. 11:12-13; (2) ratified the
covenant made with him and his seed, in God’s passing
between the pieces, in the symbol of the burning lump.
The pieces being laid over against one another, imported
that God would in due time join the separated and scat-
tered Hebrews into one body, Ezek. 37:15-22. The fowls
164

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 f : 12-17
which attempted to light on the pieces, denoted the Egyp-
tians, and other enemies of Israel, which should in vain
attempt to devour them, Ezek. 17:3, 7, 12. The horror of
great darkness which fell upon Abram, signified their great
distress and vexation in Egypt, and under their frequent
oppressors, Psa. Y5:3-Y, Dan. 10:8; and hence they are like
to a bush burning and not consumed, Exo. 3:2-3. The
burnii$g lanzp denoted .their manifest and joyful deliver-
ance, Judg. 6:21, Isa. 62: 1; the siizoking fu,r?zace, their
affliction in Egypt, Deut. 4:20, Jer. 11:4.” It should be
nwted agaiiz that it was the Lord Jehovah who did the
promising awd the revealing: all that was required of
Abram was that he believe the word of God and act
accordingly. This Abranz did, actualizing in every detail
the ritual of the unilateral covenant (which was soon to
be extended to include circunzcision as the divinely a#-
pointed seal).
7. The Oracle (vv. 12-17).
In this connection, review Green’s analysis (supra)
of the time element involved in the sequence of Abram’s
experiences as related in this chapter. After keeping watch
over the birds of sacrifice, driving away the birds of prey,
evidently from what in his consciousness was morning until
evening, the sun went down, we are told, and a deep sleep
fell upon him, and a horror of great darkness gathered
around him. “Amidst the deepening gloom there appeared
unto him a Smoking Furnace and a Burning Lamp passing
along the space between the divided victims. Presently a
Voice came to him telling him that his seed should be a
stranger in a land that was not theirs, that there they
should suffer affliction 400 years; that afterwards, in the
fourth generatioiz, when the cup of the Ainorites was full,
they shozcld come out with great substance, return to the
spoit where the patriarch now was, and enter on their
promised inheritance. Thus, amidst mingled light and
gloom, the ancestor of the elect nation was warned of the
165

15 : 12-17 GENESIS
chequered fortunes which awaited 7 his progeny, while at
the same time he was assured of thd:ultimate fulfillment
of the Promise, and the actual boundaries of the lands of
his inheritance were marked out from the river of Egypt
to the distant Euphrates; and in this cohfidence Abram
was content to possess his soul in .patience, Luke 21:19”
(COTH, 37). The present writer is inclined to the view
that the time sequence of events narrated here was not that
of Abram’s usual day and night, but that of his experiences
of light and darkness (daylight, sunset, etc.) in his prophetic
or preternatural “sleep’’ brought ori by Divine influence.
Many a man has experienced dreams whose content
stretched over more or less extended periods of duration,
only to discover on awaking that he has actually
been asleep only a few minutes of humanly-measured time.
Such indeed are the phenomenal powers of the Subconscious
in man. We have no way of knowing how longdrawn-out
the sequence of Abram’s total ‘‘vision” experience
was. As Leupold writes (EG, 482): “AS far as
the vision itself is concerned, it transpires in such a fashion
that in the course of it Abram sees the sun at the point of
setting, about as a man might dream he sees the sun setting.
Such a dream or vision might occur morning, noon or
night. Attempts to compute the length of time over
which the experience extended by the expressions used
such as ‘the sun was about to go down,’ would lead to an
unnaturally long lapse of tim’e. The setting of the sun
in the vision prepares for the falling of darkness upon him.
But first of all comes a ‘deep sleep’ which is as little a
‘trance’ here as it was in 2:21. The ‘terror and the great
darkness’ that fall upon him are the terror which the
ancestor experiences in the vision, at the revelation of the
sufferings which his descendants must endure. In the
vision he feels these things in anticipation, even before the
revelation is imparted to him that his descendants are
destined to this particular form of misery.” Again, ibid.,
166

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 5 : 12-17
p, 483, concerning vv. 13-16: “Now comes the revelation
in words apart from the symbolic act, which here is made
to represent the same facts, but it can be understood only
after the revelation thus offered by word and by symbol
makes the fact involved doubly impressive; and, surely,
there was need of unusual emphasis, for this word was
largely to furnish the much needed light during the dark
ages of the period here described.” Thus Abram was to
know of a surety (v. 13), that is, in a very definite way,
of the bondage in which his progeny should suffer in the
times ahead, of their subsequent deliverance by the mighty
hand and outstretched arm of Jehovah (Deut. 5:11), and
of the divine judgment that was certain to fall upon their
oppressors.
Lange comments as follows (CDHCG, 411), and in
a somewhat different vein: “V. 12. From this reference to
the time, we may judge what was the marvelous attention
and watchfulness of Abram. The great scene of the revelation
began on the previous night; he had stood under the
starry heavens as holding a solemnity; the victims were
slain, and the pieces distributed, and then the watch over
them was held until the setting of the sun. His physical
strength sinks with it, a deep sleep overcomes him. But the
disposition for visions preserves itself in the sleep, and so
much the more, since it is even the deep, prophetic sleep.
Abram sees himself overtaken by a great horror of darkness,
which the word of Jehovah explains to him. It was
the anticipation of the terror of darkness, which, with the
Egyptian bondage, should rest upon the people. This
bondage itself was pointed out to him, under three or four
circumstances : 1. they would be oppressed and tortured
in this service; 2. it would endure four hundred years; 3.
the oppressing people should be judged; 4. they should
come out of the bondage with great substance. It is to
be distinctly observed, that the name of this people, and
- -_
-
167

1$:12-17
the land of this servitude, is concealed: Moreover, there
are further disclosures which concekrr+the relation of the
patriarch to this sorrow of his descendants: He, himxdf
should go to his fathers in peace in:=a good, that is, great
age. But his people should reach Canaan ‘in the fourth
generation after its oppression, from ”which we may infer
that a hundred years is reckoned as a gelieration?’ -’
Jamieson (CECG, 145) : “Mhil6~ visions and. dreams
were distinct, there was a close connection between them,
so close that, as Henderson (‘On Ins$iration’J: has remarked,
‘the one species of revelation occasionally merges sinto the
other.’ Such was the case in the experience of Abram.
The divine communications first took .place in the daytime
in a vision, but afterwards, at sunset, they continued to
be made when ‘a deep sleep and a horror of great darkness
fell upon him.’ ‘The statement of the time is meant to
signify the supernatural character of the darkness and of
the sleep, and to denote the difference between a vision
and a dream’ (Gerlach) . That Abram saw in prophetic
ecstasy the servitude of his children in Egypt, represented
in a panoramic view before his mental eye, is maintained
by Hengstenberg, who thinks that this scenic picture accompanied
the prediction made to him, and recorded in
the following verses-a prediction remarkable for its
specific character, and which bears upon its front the
marks of having been uttered before the event to which
it refers took place.” “God here revealed to Abram future
history and events in the life of the promised seed. The
bondage in Egypt is foretold and its length marked as four
hundred years or four generations. The Egyptian bondage,
then, was part of the plan of God for the cradling of the
Hebrew race. But it also reveals the mercy and kindness
of God toward the Amorites to whom He extended time
for repentance before judgment should befall them” (HSB,
26). .
168

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 : 12-17
v. ly-Note the personal aspects of the Divine prom-
ise. These were literally fulfilled. “Abram did go to his
fathers in death, his spirit to the world of spirits, and his
body to the grave (dust), where they-his fathers-had
gone before him (Heb. 12:23; Gen. 21:8, 17; Gen.49:29;
Eccl. 12:7; Num. 27:13, 31:2; Judg. 2:lO; 1 Chron. 23:1,
29:28; Job 42:17; Jer.,8:2). And he went in, fiewe, with-
out remarkable trouble of any kind: in peace with God,
with his own consciance, and with his neighbors (Psa.
37:37; Isa. 57:2; 2 Ki. 22:20). And it was also in a
good old uge, when he was full of years, weary of this
world, and ready and longing for heaven, yet free from
any of the infirmities of old age, and falling like ripe fruit
in the time of gathering (Gen. 21i:8; 1 Chron. 29:28; Job
5 :26) ” (SIBG, 238). Consider carefully the promise,
“thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace.” Is not more im-
plied here than the return of their bodies to the dust?
From the vivid portrayal of Abraham’s faith presented in
the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, especially v. 10, it surely
would seem so. Whitelaw comments (PCG, 221) : “Not
a periphrasis for going to the grave, since Abram’s ancestors
were not entombed in Canaan; but a proof of the survival
of departed spirits in a state of conscious existence after
death, to the company of which the patriarch was in due
time to be gathered. The disposal of his remains is pro-
vided for in what follows.” Cf. Leupold (EG, 485) : “The
expression ‘go unto thy fathers’ must involve more than
having his own dead body laid beside the dead bodies of
the fathers. So we find here a clear testimony to belief
in an eternal life in the patriarchal age. Coupled with this
revelation from God is the assurance of a decent burial at a
ripe old age, a thing desired especially in Israel, and, for that
matter, among most of the nations of antiquity.”
The specifics of the Divine communication (oracle)
here are indeed clear, as follows: 1. The bondage of the
Children of Israel in a strange (unnamed) land over a
169

15 : 12-17 GENESIS
period of 400 years. (Cf. Exo. 12:40, for 430 years, the
witness of Moses; Acts 7:6, for 400 years, the testimony of
Stephen the martyr; Gal. 3:17, for 430 years, from the
confirmation of the Promise to the giving of the Law,
the words of the Apostle Paul.) (For this problem of the
time span involved, see infra.) The identity of the na-
tion involved is not disclosed, probably because Egypt was
wont to serve as a place of refuge for peoples of Meso-
potamia and Asia - (now designated Asia Minor) when
those areas were hit by famine, as had occurred already in
the case of Abram (12: lo) ; probably because God did not
want to appear to be interfering with the free volition
of His creatures, “who, while accomplishing his high de-
signs and secret purposes, are ever conscious of their moral
freedom” (PCG, 221) ; conceivably, lest the fleshly seed
of Abram should conceive, prematurely, an undue preju-
dice against the Egyptians. We must keep in mind that
man is Predestined to be free, hence his free choices con-
stitute the foreknowledge of God: it follows, theref ore,
that the sequence of events disclosed in this oracle, although
indeed foreknown by Yahweh were not necessarily foye-
ordained by Him. Foreknowing the circumstances that
would cause the migration of the Israelites into Egypt, and
the bondage that wozdd ensue with the ascent of a Pharaoh
to the Egyptian throne who would be driven by jealousy
to attem,pt what might be called a modified form of
genocide, i.e., of Israel aizd bis ’progeny, Yahweh, accord-
ing to His own protzouncement, would effect their de-
liverance “by u mighty bund and by an oatstretched arm’’
(Exo. 1:8 ff., Deut. 5:15). 2. Their delivery from this
bondage “with great substance,” and the judgment that
would be divinely imposed on their oppressors. (Cf. Exo.
12 : 3 f -3 6.) The God of Israel utilized the world-shaking
events of the Period of Deliverance (Exodus) to demon-
strate beyond any possibility of doubt His absolute sov-
ereignty, in striking contrast to the powerlessness of pagan
170

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 S : 12-17
gods, and in particular those monstrosities which character-
ized Egyptian paganism. Jamieson (CECG, 145) : “The
exodus of Israel from Egypt was to be marked by a series
of severe national judgments upon that country; and these
were to be inflicted by God upon the Egyptians, not only
because the subjects of their grinding oppression were the
posterity of Abram, but on account of their aggravated
sins particularly that of idolatry.” As Dr. Will Durant
writes (OOH, 197-200) : “Beneath and above everything
in Egypt was religion. We find it there in every stage and
form from totemism to theology; we see its influence in
literature, in government, in art, in everything except
morality.” The Egyptians heaped unto themselves gods of
every kind and description: sky gods, the Sun-god (Re,
Amon, or Ptah), plant gods, insect gods, animal gods (so
numerous that they “filled the Egyptian pantheon like a
chattering menagerie”), sex gods (of which the bull, the
goat, and the snake were especially venerated for their
sexual reproductive power) , humanized gods (human
beings elevated to “godhood”: even these, however, re-
tained animal doubles and symbols). The Nile River was
especially an object of veneration (with good reason, to
be sure, because all life in Egypt depended on its inunda-
tions). It is a matter of common knowledge that every
one of the great Plagues (Exo., chs. 7 through 12) was
directed against some form of Egyptian worship. In
addition to all this, phallic worship in its grossest forms
characterized all aspects of Egyptian ritual and life (Cf.
Rom. 1:18-32). 3. Their return to the Promised Land
“in the fourth generation,” when the iniquity of its in-
habitants should be “full” (cf. Gen. 6:S). 4. The specific
boundaries of the land: it would extend “from the river
of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” This
geography is further clarified by the enumeration of the
Canaanite peoples who occupied the land (vv. 19-21).
"The River of Egypt”: not the Wady el Arish, at the
171

15:12-17 ’ GENESIS .
southern limits of Palestine (Num. 34:5, Josh. 15:4, Isa.
27: 12), an insignificant winter torrent designated in Scripture
“the brook of Egypt”; not the Pelusiac branch of the
Nile, from Pelusium which was from earliest times the
frontier town of Egypt; but surely the Nile itself, the only
river worthy of being designated the River of Egypt.
This did not necessarily mean that the boundary of Israel
should some day actually extend to the Nile directly; but,
that in relation to the Euphrates these two great rivers
“were the easiest way of designating within what limits
Israel’s boundaries should lie” (EG, 490). Some authorities
hold that at two different times in Israel’s history
this extent of territorial sovereignty was realized: first,
during the reign of Solomon (1 Ki. 4:21-25, 8 :65; 2
Chron. 9:26) and later, in the reign of Jeroboam I1 of
Israel (2 Ki. 14:25-28). Because of the uncertainty of
geographical identifications here, the present writer is
inclined to agree with other authorities whose position is
well stated by Jarnieson (CECG, 147) : “The descendants
of Abram, in point of fact, never extended their possessions,
even in the greatest height of their national prosperity, to
the full extent of the boundaries here defined. But the
land of promise, as contemplated in the Divine purpose,
was corextensive with the limits specified, and the failure
to realize the full accomplishment of the promise arose
not from unfaithfulness on the part of God, but from the
sinful apathy and disobedience of those to whom the
promise was given, in not exterminating the heathen, who
had forfeited the right to occupy the land (Exo. 23:31).”
The Iahabitants of the Land.
The nations enumer-
ated here as occupying the Land of Promise are ten in
number, 1 The enumeration varies in other Scriptures: in
Exo. .23:28, three are mentioned as representative of all;
in Exo, 3:17, six.are named; most generally named are
seven, as in josh. 24:11. -This variation may be attributed
to two factors: the appearance of other ethnic groups in
172

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 5 : 12-17
the territory between Abram’s time and the occupation
under Joshua, and the obvious inclusiveness with which
some of the names are vested, especially the names, Canaanite,
Amorite, and Hittite, For the Kewites, see Num.
24:21; Judg. 1:16, 4:11, 4:17, 5:24; 1 Sam. 30:29; for
the Kadmollites, “children of the East,” Judg. 6:3; Job
1 :3 ; for the Hittites, who certainly occupied the area in
the north between the Sea of Tiberias and the Mediterranean,
see Gen. 23:10, 26:34; Josh. 1:4; Judg. 1:26, 3:J;
1 Ki. 11:1; 2 IG. 7:6; 2 Chron. 8:7; Ezra 9:l; for the
Perizzites, who are always mentioned along with the Canaanites,
cf. Gen. 34:30; Exo. 3:8, 23:23; Josh. 17:lJ;
Judg. 1:4-J, 3:j; 2 Chron. 8:7; Ezra 9:1; for the Repbairn,
see comment in Part Twenty-Seven herein, on Gen. 14:J;
for the Jebzcsites, cf. Gen. 10:16; Exo. 33:2, 34:ll; Num.
13:29; Josh. 15:63 (here mentioned as inhabiting Jerusalem)
; Judg. 1 :21, 19: 11 ; 2 Sam. 5:8, According to
Speiser (ABG, 69) , the Jebusites constituted “the ruling
Hurrian element in Jerusalem during the Amarna age, ca.
1400 B.C.” The location of the Keizizzites (mentioned
only in this place) and that of the Girgushites are unidentifiable;
however, cf. Gen. 10:16, 36:1J, 42; Deut.
7:1, Josh. 3:10, 1 Chron. 1:14, Neh. 9:8. As for the
Canaanites and the Amorites,.either as an ethnic group or
as a complex of ethnic groups, see any reliable Concordance.
The Iniquity of the Amorites.
“Amorite,” normally,
designates a specific nation or people, but is sometimes
also used, like the name “Canaanite,” for the pre-Israelite
population of Canaan. (Cf. all this material with the
Table of Nations, ch. lo). The Amorites were so numer-
ous and powerful throughout the land that their name
was often, as is the case here, given to all the occupants
(cf. Judg. 6:10, Josh. lO:J, 24:lJ): one of their great
cultural centers was Mari, on the middle Euphrates north-
west of Babylon, where the archaeologist, M. A. Parrot,
173

17:12-17 GENESIS
has dug up thousands of clay tables from the archives of
an Amorite king, In the Oracle of Gen. 17:16, we are
told that the occupancy of the Promised Land by the
Israelites was to be delayed four hundred years because
the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full, that is, had
not reached such a state that there was no one righteous
among them-no, not one! As a matter of fact, that the
Canaanites were not yet vessels fit only for destruction is
proved by the courtesy of Abimelech toward Abraham,
and of one of his successors toward Isaac later (chs. 20,
26). Jamieson (CECG, 146), concerning v. 16: “The
statement implies that there is a progress in the course of
sin and vice among nations as well as with individuals, and
that, although it be long permitted, by the tolerant spirit
of the Divine government, to go on with impunity, it will
at length reach a culminating point, where, in the retribu-
tions of a righteous Providence, the punishment of the
sinner, even in this world, is inevitable,” “Iniquity is full,
when it is arrived at such a number of acts, such a degree
of aggravation, and time of continuance, that God, in
consistence with,his purpose or honour, can no longer for-
bear to punish it” (SIBG, 238). (Cf. Gen. 6:3, Jer. 5:13,
Dan. 8:23, Joel 3:12, Matt, 12:32, 1 Thess. 2:16, 2 Thess.
1:7-10, Rev. 19:15-16).
Murphy (MG, 299) : “For the iniquity of the Amorite
is not yet full. From this simple sentence we have much
to learn. 1. The Lord foreknows the moral character of
men. 2. In his providence he administers the affairs of
nations on the principle of moral rectitude. 3. Nations are
spared until their iniquity is full. 4. They are then cut
off in retributive justice. 1. The Amorite was to be the
chief nation exitrpated for its iniquity on the return of
the seed of Abram. Accordingly we find the Amorites
occupying, by conquest the country east of the Jordan,
from the Arnon to Mount Hermon, under their two kings
Sihon and Og (Nurn. 2 1 :2 1-3 r ) . On the west of Jordan
174

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15 : 12- 17
we have already met them at En-gedi and Hebron, and
they dwelt in the mountains of Judah and Ephraim (Num.
13 :29) , whence they seem to have crossed the Jordan for
conquest (Num. 21:26). Thus had they of all the tribes
that overspread the land by far the largest extent of terri-
tory. And they seem to have been extinguished as a na-
tion by the invasion of Israel, as we hear no more of them
in the subsequent history of the country.” No nation is
destroyed until its iniquity becomes intolerable to Absolute
Justice. (Cf. Gen. 18:22-23, 1 Ki. 19:18, Rom. 11:4, Exo.
17:14, Deut. 21:17-19; Matt. 23:37-39; Ezek. 21:27-
I C
I will overturn, overturn, overturn it,” that is, Jeru-
Salem.) History proves that there are times when the
destruction of a iiatiods power, eueiz of the natioiz itself,
becomes a moral necessity. “National sin prevented the
Israelites from possessing the whole country originally
promised to Abraham (Exo. 23:20-33, with Josh. 23:ll-
16, Judg. 2:20-23). The country as promised here to
Abraham was much more extensive than that described
by Moses in Num. 34” (SIBG, 23 8) .
The Tinze-Span Problem: “four hundred years,” “in
the fourth generation” (Gen. 15:13, 16; Acts 7:6), vs.
“four hundred and thirty years” (Exo. 12:40, Gal. 3:17).
These phrases have given rise to much computation and
differences of interpretation. The Septuagint gives Exo.
12:40 as follows: “The sojourning of the children of Israel,
which they sojourned in Egypt and iiz the land of Caiiaan,
was 430 years.” The Samaritan Version reads: “The so-
journing of the children of Israel and of their fatlhm,
which they sojourned iiz the land of Caiiaaiz aiid in the
land of Egypt, was 430 years.’’ Whitelaw (PC, Exodus,
Vol. I, Intro., p. 17): “If the Hebrew text is sound we
must count 430 years from the descent of Jacob into Egypt
to the Exodus; if it is corrupt, and to be corrected from
the two ancient versions, the time of the sojourn will be
reduced one-half, for it was a space of exactly 215 years
175

1 m?-17 GENESIS
from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan to the descent
of Jacob into Egypt.” “From the entrance of Abraham
into Canaan to the birth of Isaac was twenty-five years
(Gen. 12:4, 17:1, 21); from the birth of Isaac to that of
Jacob was sixty years (Gen. 25:26). Jacob was 130 years
old when he went into Egypt (Gen. 47:9), Thus 2Y
plus 60 plus 130 equals 215 years’ (ibid.) In refutation
of this view, it should be noted that accqrding to the
Hebrew text the Children of Israel were to be afflicted
four hundred years. But there is no evidence that the seed
of Abraham suffered affliction of any unusual kilnd at
the hands of the Canaanites: indeed Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob seem to have been treated with considerable courtesy
by their Canaanite neighbors (chs. 20, 26; esp. ch. 34, the
account of the perfidy of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi,
toward the Hivite princes). In fact none of the state-
ments with reference to the nation oppressing the Israel-
ites (vv. 13, 14) can apply to the Canaanites. Moreover,
the longer period “is most consonant alike with the esti-
mate formed of the entire number of the grown males at
the time of the Exodus (600,000, Exo. 12:37), and with
the details given of particular families in the Book of
Numbers, as especially those of the families of the Levites,
in ch. 3:21-39” (ibid.). It seems obvious that the account
which is given in the Hebrew text is the authentic one: this
is supported by the fact that there are signs that the Sep-
tuagint and Samaritan texts are interpolated, and by the
addiional fact that it is only the length of the sojourn in
Egypt that is in the writer’s mind at this point of his
narrative (ibid.) .
Leupold (EG, 484) : “The whole experience of being
sojourner, being enslaved, and being oppressed shall involve
‘four hundred years.’ To make the whole sojourn one
continuous oppression is completely at variance with the
facts. In fact, computing according to the life of Moses,
we should be nearest the truth if we allot the last century
176

THE, PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 Y : 12 - 17
to the oppression. The four hundred years mentioned are,
of course, a round number, which is given more exactly in
Exo. 12:40 as 430 years.” Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP,
216): “That these words had reference to the sojourn of
the children of Israel in Egypt, is placed beyond all doubt
by the fulfillment. The 400 years were, according to
prophetic language, a round number for the 430 years that
Israel spent in Egypt.” Jamieson (CECG, 145) : ‘Four
hundred years.’ The statement is made here in round num-
bers, as also in Acts 7:6, but more exactly 430 years in
Exo. 12:40, Gal. 3:17.” Whitelaw (PCG, 221): “Three
different stages of adverse fortune are described-exile,
bondage, and affliction; or the two last clauses depict the
contents of the first. Fowr hundred years. The duration
not of their affliction merely, but either of their bondage
and affliction, or more probably of their exile, bondage, and
affliction; either a round number for 430, to be reckoned
from the date of the descent into Egypt, as Moses (Exo.
12:40) and Stephen (Acts 7:6) seem to say, and to be
reconciled with the statement of Paul (Gal. 3:17) by
regarding the death of Jacob as the closing of the time of
promise; or an exact number dating from the birth of
Isaac, which was thirty years after the call in Ur, thus
making the entire interval correspond with the 430 years
of Paul, or from the persecution of Ishmael which occurred
thirty years after the promise in ch. 12:3.” Gosman
(CDHCG, 413) : “The genealogical table, Exod. 6:16 ff.,
favors a much shorter residence than four hundred years;
since the combined ages of the persons there mentioned,
Levi, Kohath, Amram, including the years of Moses at
the time of the exodus, amount to only four hundred and
eighty-four years, from which we must take, of course,
the age of Levi, at the entrance of Jacob into Egypt, and
the ages of the different fathers at the birth of their sons.
It is better, therefore, with Wordsworth, Murphy, Jacobus,
177

15:12-17 GENESIS
and many of the earlier commentators, to make the four
hnudred years begin with the birth of Isaac, and the four
hundred and thirty of the apostle to date from the call
of Abram.” Again, Leupold (EG, 484): “The four hundred
years mentioned are, of course, a round number, which
is given more exactly in Exod. 12:40 as 430 years. Michell’s
computations agree with these figures, making the year of
Jacob’s going down into Egypt to be 1879 B.C. and the
year of the Exodus 1449. Since this latter year, or perhaps
1447 B.C., is now quite commonly accepted, we may let
these dates stand as sufficiently exact for all practical purposes.
How Moses arrived at the computation 430 in
Exod. 12:40 need not here concern us. Other instances
of exact predictions in numbers of years are found in Jer.
25 : 11, 29: 10, in reference to seventy years; and ha. 16:14,
for a matter of three years.” As for the Apostle’s timespan,
Gal. 3:17, this ccwould simply show that, in writing
to Greek-speaking Jews, whose only Bible was the Septuagint
version, he made use of that translation. It would
not even prove his own opinion upon the point, since the
chronological question is not pertinent to his argument, and,
whatever he may have thought upon it, he would certainly
not have obtruded upon his Galatian disciples a wholly
irrelevant discussion” (PC, Exodus, Vol. I, Intro., p. 18).
V. 16. In the fowth generation. This should probably
read “the fourth generation shall return,” etc. Here the
original word, dor, translated “generation,” means “circle.”
cc
turning,” “age.” Jamieson (CECG, 146) : “the revolu-
tion or circle of human years; an age or generation. Like
genen among the Greeks, and saeculum among the Romans,
its meaning, a3 to extent of time, differed at different pe-
riods. In the patriarchal age it denoted a hundred years
(cf. v. 13 with Exo. 12:40). In later ages its signification
was mOre limited, as it is used to describe a period of from
thirty to forty years (Job 42: 16). And on the ground of
178

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15:12-17
this ordinary import borne by the word ‘generation,’ a
recent writer has founded an objection to the historical
truth of this history. But he draws an unwarrantable con-
clusion; for, as there are only two modes of computing a
‘generation,’ the original rate of calculating it at from
thirty to forty years, and the patriarchal usage to which,
in accordance with Abram’s habits of thought, the Divine
Revealer accorded his words, it is evident that the ‘fourth
generation’ is to be taken in the latter sense, as is distinctly
intimated in v. 13.’’ Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP, 216) :
“The calculations are made here on the basis of a hundred
years to a generation: not too much for those times, when
the average duration of life was above 150 years, and Isaac
was born in the hundredth year of Abraham’s life.”
Speiser (ABG, 113): As in Gen. 6:9, “Heb. dor signifies,
‘duration,’ ‘age,’ ‘time span,’ and only secondarily ‘genera-
tion’ in the current use of the term. The context does
not show specifically how the author used the term in this
instance; it could have been any of the several round num-
bers of years. No conclusion can therefore be drawn from
this passage in regard to the date of the Exodus.” Murhpy
(MG, 299: ‘‘In the fourth age. An age here means the
average period from the birth to the death of one man.
This use of the word is proved by Numbers 32:13-‘He
made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all
the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord
was consumed.’ This age or generation ran parallel with
the life of Moses, and therefore consisted of one hundred
and twenty years. Joseph lived one hundred and ten years.
Four such generations amount to four hundred and egihty
or four hundred and forty years. From the birth of Isaac
to the return to the land of promise was an interval of four
hundred and forty years. Isaac, Levi, Amram, and Eleazar
may represent the four ages.” Again, on v. 13, Murphy
(ibid., p. 298) : “Four hundred years are to elapse before
179
.
I

15: 12-17 GENESIS
the seed of Abraham shall acutally proceed to take possession
of the land. This interval can only-commence when
the seed its born; that is, at the birth of Isaac, when Abram
was a hundred years of age, and therefore thirty years after
the call. During this interval they are to be, first, strangers
in a land not theirs for one hundred and ninety years; and
then for the remaining two hundred and ten years in
Egypt: at first, servants, with considerable privilege and
position; and at last, afflicted serfs, under a hard and cruel
bondage. At the end of this period Pharaoh and his nation
were visited with a succession of tremendous judgments,
and Israel went out free from bondage with great wealth
(Exo. chs. 12:14) .”
Leupold (EG, 486) : “Another factor enters into these
computations and readjustments-‘the guilt of the Amorites.’
All the inhabitants of Canaan are referred to by the
term ‘Amorites,’ the most important family of the Canaanites
(see on 10: 16). The term is similarly used in 48:22;
Num. 13:29, 21:21, etc., Deut. 1:7, 19. These aboriginal
inhabitants of Canaan had heaped up a measure of ‘guilt’
by this time. The measure was not yet ‘complete’
(shdem), that is, they were nearing the point where divine
tolerance could bear with them no longer, but they
had not yet arrived at this point. God’s foreknowledge
discerned that in a few more centuries these wicked nations
would have forfeited their right tp live, and then He would
replace them in the land of Canaan by the Israelites. Passages
bearing on the iniquity of the Canaanites are Lev.
18:24 ff.; 20:22 ff.; Deut. 18:9ff. So God will allow the
children of Israel to be absent from tlie land while the
Canaanites continue in their‘ evil ways. When He can
bear the Canaanites no longer, He will have another nation
ready wherewith to teplace them. Thus far we have encountered
no direct evidence of Canaanite iniquity but
shall soon see the starting examples offered by Sodom.”
180

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 5 : 12-17
It seems to us that the following summarization of
the time-span problem here under study is by far the
most satisfactory (from PC, Exodus, Vol. I, Intro., p. 19) :
From the descent of Jacob into Egypt
to the death of Joseph 71 years
From the death of Joseph to the birth
of Moses 278 years
From the birth of Moses to his flight
into Midian 40 years
From the flight of Moses into Midian
to his return to Egypt 40 years
From the return of Moses, to the Exodus 1 year
~ ~~
Total 430 years
(For a thoroughgoing explanation of these figures, see Keil
and Delitzsch (COTP, 371, and 414, art., “Chronological
Survey of the Leading Events of the Patriarchal History”;
also Kalisch, Comment on Exodw, Introduction, pp. 1 1 -
13). Finally, Lange (CDHCG, 413) : “The difference
between the four hundred years, v. 13, and Acts 7:6, and
the four hundred and thirty years, Exo. 12:40, is explained,
not only by the use of round, prophetic numbers here, but
also from the fact that we must distinguish between the
time when the Israelites generally dwelt in Egypt, and the
period when they became enslaved and oppressed. Paul
counts (Gal. 3:17) the time between the promise and the
law, as four hundred and thirty years, in the thought that
the closing date of the time of promise was the death of
Jacob (Gen. 49) .” (See also, on Exo. 12:40, Haley, ADB,
418.)
8. The Coueizant (vv. 17-21)
The Divine promises-of a seed and of a land-with
the accompanying signs are now brought up into the
Covenant, i.e., subsumed therein. The Divinely appointed
181

15 : 17-2 1 GENESIS
sign of the Covenant as an ethnic, and later a national,
institution (that is, with Abraham and his fleshly seed) is
to be disclosed in the 17th chapter.
Stages of the Promise.
Lange (CDHCG, 412): “The
stages of the promise which Abram received, viewed as to
its genealogical sequence, may be regarded in this order: 1.
Thou shalt be a man of blessing, and shalt become a great
people (12:2); 2. To thy seed will I give.this land (12:7) ;
3. To thy seed the land, to thy land thy seed (13:14 ff).
Here (15:18) the promise of the seed and the hnd was
sealed in the form of a covenant. 4. The promise of a
seed advances in the form of a covenant to the assurance
that God would be the God of his seed (17:7). 5. The
promise is more definite, that not Ishmael but the son of
Sarah should be his heir (17:II ff.). 6. The heir was
promised in the next year (18:lO). 7. The whole promise
in its richest fullness was sealed by the oath of Jehovah
(ch. 22) .”
God’s Covenants, it must be understood, are not like
mmpacts or contracts between men. The covenant with
Noah, of course, was absolutely unilateral (Gen. 9:8-17),
that is, the obligation (promise) was solely on the Divine
side; nothing is required of mankind. The two great Cove-
nants of the Bible, with the fleshly seed and the spiritual
seed of Abraham respectively, of which the Old and New
Testaments are the permanent or stereotyped records (Gal.
3 : 15 -29) , strictly speaking are likewise unilateral in essence
but conditioned upon man’s response by the obedience of
faith (Gal, 3’:2). That is to say, God overtures, states the
terms upon which the Divine promises will be fulfilled;
man must hear, accept, and obey the terms or conditions,
whereupon he will receive the fufillment of the Divine
promises. Hence, not even the great Covenants are, strictly
speaking, bilateral, “Whatever may have been the supposed
relative standing ,of the two parties to the covenant [in
182

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 j : 17-21
pagan cults] , . . in the Israelite tradition it was no agree-
ment between equals. The terms of the covenant were not
the result of negotiation: they were imposed by the Lord
(cf, Exod. 34:lO-11; 24:7) ; and the covenant was inagu-
rated at the foot of the flaming mountain (cf. Exod.
19: 18) .’’ The commentator here is assuming the premise
that the Old Covenant of the Bible was a borrowing from
the eccult of Baal-berith at Shechem.” The theory is ab-
surd for two reasons: (1) the ethical purity of the Cove-
nant with Israel as compared with that of the pagan cults;
(2) the name of Deity (I AM) of the Covenant with
Israel expresses pure personalify in striking contrast to the
names of pagan gods and goddesses which are simply per-
sonifications of natural forces. The difference between
pure personality and mere personification is the difference
between heaven and earth, the divine and the human. The
NAME of the Old Covenant God is a revealed name; the
names of pagan gods and goddesses were all of human
origin, (There is no word for goddess in the Hebrew
language.) It is inconceivable that any human being could
ever have conjured up out of his own imagination the great
and incommunicable NAME by which God revealed Him-
self to His ancient people (Exo. 3 : 14-1 5 ) , and especially
any member of a nation surrounded on all sides by nothing
but pagan idolatrous cults with their gross immoralities as
was ancient Israel. We now quote the remainder of the
comment in which the writer (IBG, 603) emphasizes the
ethical superiority of the Covenant with Israel. Israel
made the covenant idea, he goes on to say, “the vehicle of
their faith in the dependability of God. He was no ca-
pricious despot but a God of righteousness and order who
respected human personality. He would not change: his
favor was sure. But Israel would benefit by that favor
only in so far as they were obedient to the divine will.”
With these statements we agree wholeheartedly. The com-
mentator continues as follows concerning v. 18: “In this
183

1 I: 17-21 GENESIS
passage, stating God’s promise to Abraham in covenant
terms, no conditions are imposed. But the implication of
the narrative in its present and final form would seem to
be that the covenant would stand so long as Abraham’s
descendants continued to follow the example set by him
when he believed the Lard (v. 6).” Biblical cwerutlmfs
are not agreements between equaZs: hence can hardly be
designated bilateral in the strict sense of the term. In all
such covenants, Grace pramises and provides, but humm
faith must accept and obey in order to enjoy.
V. 17. R.S.V.-e‘A smoking fire pot and a flaming
torch passed between these pieces” (cf, Jer. 34:18-19) of
the various sacrificial creatures arranged in proper order.
Keil-Delitzsch, (COTP, 2 16-2 17) : “In this symbol Jehovah
manifested Himself to Abrani, just as He afterwards did
to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire.
Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which
He had made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in
fire and smoke, the product of the consuming fire-both
symbols of the wrath of God, whose fiery zeal consumes
whatever opposes it.” (Cf. Exo. 3:2, 13:21, 19:18; Deut.
4:24, Heb. 10:31; Psa. 18:9.) Continuing (;bid.): To
establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded
with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed
of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened
by destruction, and to execute judgment on their sppres-
sors (Exo. 7:4, 12:2). In this symbol, the passing of the
Lord between the pieces meant something altogether dif -
ferent from the oath of the Lord by Himself in ch. 22:16,
or by His life in Deut. 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:s
and Jer, j1:14. It set before Abram the condescension
of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty
as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not con-
sumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not
to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul
184

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 J : 17-21
of the offered was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to
a covenant in which God came down to man. Froin, the
nature of the coueiiant, it followed, howeuer, that God
alolze went through the pieces in a symbolical representa-
tion# of Himself, and not Abranz also. For although a
covenant always establishes a reciprocd relation between
two i?idividuals, yet in thd covenant which God concluded
with a man, the m,an did not stand 07% ai$ equality with
God, but God established the relation of fellowship by
His proinise and His gracioia condescension. to the man,
who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified
and bouiid to fulfill the obligatioTis coizsequent upon the
covenaizt by the receptio.rz of gifts of grace,” (Italics mine
-C. C.) Skinner (ICCG, 283) : “This ceremony consti-
tutes a Berith, of which the one provision is the possession
of ‘the land.’ A Berith necessarily implies two or more
parties; but it may happen that from the nature of the
case its stipulations are binding only on one. So, here:
Yahweh alone passes (symbolically) between the pieces, be-
cause He alone contracts obligation. The land is described
according to its ideal limits.” Keil-Delitzsch; on vv. 18-21
(ibid., p. 217) : “In vers. 18-21 this divine revelation is
described as the making of a covenant , . . the bond con-
cluded by cutting pp the sacrificial animals, and the sub-
stance of this covenant is embraced in the promise, that
God would give that land to the seed of Abram, from the
river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates. The river of
Egypt is the Nile, and not the brook of Egypt, Num.
34: 5, ie., the boundary stream Rbinocorura, Wady el Arish.
According to the oratorical character of the promise, the
two large rivers, the Nile and the Euphrates, are mentioned
as the boundaries within which the seed of Abram would
possess the promised land, the exact limits of which are
minutely described in the list of the tribes who were then
in possession.’’ With these concluding statements the pres-
ent author finds himself in complete agreement.
185

11:17-21 GENESIS
Schultz (OTS, 34): “The covenant plays an important
role in Abraham’s experience, Note the successive
revelations of God after the initial promise to which Abraham
responded in obedience, As God enlarged this promise,
Abraham exercised faith which was reckoned to him as
righteousness (Gen. 15). In this covenant the land of
Canaan was specifically pledged to the descendants of
Abraham. With the promise of the son, circumcision was
made the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17). This covenant
promise was finally sealed in Abraham’s act of obedience
when he demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice his only
son Isaac (Gen. 22).”
In its present fused form, ch. 11 consists of two interrelated
parts. The first (1-6) has to do with the increasingly
urgent matter of Abraham’s heir. The patriarch’s
original call (1 2: 1 ff.) implied that the mandate
was to be taken over by Abraham’s descendants. Thus
far, however, -Abraham has remained childless. The ultimate
success of his mission was therefore in danger. Moreover,
he had cause for personal anxiety, for in ancient Near
Eastern societies it was left to a son to ensure a restful
afterlife for his father through proper interment and rites
(‘he shall lament him and bury him,’ say the Nuzi texts).
God’s reaffirmed promise of a son now sets Abraham’s
mind at rest on both counts. The remainder of the chapter
(7-24) places the preceding incident in a broader perspective.
Above and beyond personal considerations, the
birth of an heir to Abraham is essential to God’s scheme
of things. It involves a nation to be, and its establishment
in the Promised Land. That land shall extend from Egypt
ia (18). The emphasis shifts thus to world
he importance of the episode is underscored
by the conclusion of a covenant.
In secular practice, this
ct between states. This time,
covenant between the Creator
of the universe and the ancestor of a nation ordained in
i
186

THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15:17-21
advance to be a tool for shaping the history of the world.
Small wonder, therefore, that the description touches on
magic, \and carries with it a feeling of awe and mystery
which, thanks to the genius of the narrator, can still grip
the reader after all the intervening centuries’’ (ABG, 11 5).
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
What God Did Through the Children of Israel
(1 Cor. 1O:l-13, Rom. 15:4, Gal. 3:24-25)
We often hear the question, Why did not God send
His Son into the world to redeem mankind immediately
after the disobedience of our first parents? Why did He
not send Him in the time of Abraham or Moses or the
Prophets, etc.? Why did He wait so long before in-
augurating the redemptive phase of His Eternal Purpose?
(Cf. Eph. 3:8-13, 1 Pet. l:lO-l2, Gal, 4:4.)
We might counter these questions with the following:
Why did not God so constitute the acorn that it would
grow into an oak instantaneously? Or, why did He not
so create the infant that it would grow into a man or
woman in a few minutes, weeks or months? The answer
seems to be that “sundry matters had first to be practically
demonstrated before the Gospel could be fully and properly
revealed to mankind as the power of God for the salvation
of every true believer” (Milligan, SR, 73). In the Purpose
of God, it was left to the Gentiles to demonstrate by their
numerous failures in theoretical and practical ccwisdom,”
such as, for example, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism,
Epicureanism, etc., and indeed all “schools” of philosophy,
the sheer inadequacy of human speculation to fathom the
mysteries of Being; and by their equally numerous failures
in trying to establish an adequate system of religion with
only the dim light of “nature” to guide them (cf. Rom.
1:20-32). The history of philosophy shows that man’s
greatest problem has ever been that of relating, in‘ any
187

e- . .
GENESIS ’.7 - 4 %
satisfying way, the mystery of life to7,the supreme and in-
evitable frustration, death. Philosophy +-has ever been con-
cerned, above all other things, with death. (By way of
contrast, Jesus had little to say about- death-the- theme
that was on His lips at all times was life: Matt. 25:46;
John 5:40, 10:lO.) As Immanuel .Kaat has put .it, the
three great problems that have always: engendered *human
speculation are God, freedom, and immortality;. it will be
noted that these have to do with the origin,*nature, and
destiny of the person. The outstanding;f.a.ct that has to do
with human life in its fullness is that0 the-question voiced
by Job in the early ages of the world ; (.Job 14:14) re-
mained unanswered until it was answered :at Joseph‘s tomb
b’ 2 .
(1 Cor. 15:12-28). ” .
What ends, then, did God achieve through His ancient
people, the fleshly seed of Abraham, the Children of Israel?
The following:
1. The continuance and increase of the knowledge of
Himself, His attributes and His works, among men.
Through the Patriarchs He revealed His self -existence, unity
and personality. Through Moses and the demonstrations
in Egypt, He revealed His omnipotence. Through the
Prophets especially He revealed His wisdom and holiness.
Throughout the entire history of the People of Israel He
revealed His infinite justice, goodness, and righteousness.
Through His Only Begotten He revealed His ineffable
love and compassion (John 14:9, 1 Cor. 1:21, Heb. 1:l-4).
How utterly absurd for any human being to try to apprehend
and worship God aright from the revelation of
CC
nature”! Hence it was that God put His Old Testament
people in the pulpit of the world to preserve monotheism,
the knowledge of the living and true God, HE WHO IS
(Jer. 10:10, Matt. 16:16, John 17:3, 1 Thess. 1:9, 1 John
1:20)’, by way of contrast to the coldly intellectual “God,”
THAT WHICH IS, of human philosophy. This God, the
pantheistic God of ‘human philosophy, will never suffice
188

WHAT GOD DID THRU ISRAEL
to meet the institutions, aspirations, and needs of the human
spirit (cf. Rom. 8:26-27).
2. The perpetuation and development of the essential
principles, laws, and institutions of true religion. These
are, as we have learned already, the Altar, the Sacrifice,
and the Priesthood. (Cf. Gen. 8:20, 12:7-8, 13:18, etc.;
Exo. 20:24-26; Heb. 9:22; Lev, 17:ll; Exa 12:5; Rom.
3:24-26; Rev. 5:9; 1 Pet. 2:j, 9, 24; Heb. 9:ll-28; Rev.
1:6, $:lo, 20:6.)
3. The revelation of the essential principles of moral
conduct, and of national and social righteousness. There
were many noted lawgivers in the ancient world: Minos
and Rhadamanthus of Crete, Hammurabi of Babylon,
Numa Pompilius of Rome, Solon of Athens, Lycurgus of
Sparta, etc. Undoubtedly there was a strain of Semitic
moral (and civil) law-norms of right and wrong con-
duct-handed down by word of mouth from generation
to generation (Rom. 2:14-15). The apostle tells us that
under conscience, however, as educated by tradition alone,
man became more and more sinful; hence the necessity of
incorporating these basic norms into a permanent code:
this was done through the mediatorship of Moses (Gal.
3:19). There can be no doubt, in the minds of honest
intelligent persons that if all men could be induced to
shape their lives by the two Great Commandments as in-
corporated in the Decalogue (cf. Matt, 22:34-40, Deut.
6:5, Lev. 19:18, Exo. 2O:l-17) this temporal world of
mankind in which we are living today would be a very
different world. H. A. Overstreet (The Mature Mind,
96) points up the superiority of the Mosaic Code to all
other legal codes of antiquity, in these words: “The Deca-
logue remains for us the first great insight of our culture
into man’s moral nature. There had been other ‘codes’
before this one, but they had lacked the consistency of
moral insight conveyed in the Decalogue. One and all,
they had been class codes, making arbitrary discriminations
189

* ,
between human beings; rights to some than
to others. Thus, they were not ye.t moral because they
failed of moral universality. They ,belonged to cultures
that had not yet emerged from the Stage of many gods
and many different truths: one truth for the highborn,
another for the lowborn. The Decalogue was the first
statement of the oneness of all who. are human: oneness
in rights and oneness in obligations.,’.‘,. The Decalogue is
God’s Mandate to Humanity: to prince,- scholar, commoner,
rich man, and pauper alike. (See. also Rom. 3:20, Eccl.
12:13, Prov. 14:34, Psa. 111:10, Amos.5:11, Mic. 6:8, Isa.
1:15-17, Jer. 25:5-6, etc.) I
4. The fact of the indaequacyl.of law to save people
from their sins. (See Rorn, 7:7-8, 8;3; Heb. lO:l, 1 Cor.
15:56, John 1:17, 1 John 3:4). It is not-the function of
law to save or redeem: law serves only to distinguish right
conduct from wrong conduct. The Children of Israel
were specially called and used of God to demonstrate the
exceeding sinfulness of sin, our inability to save ourselves
through works of the moral law, and consequently the
need of every accountable human being for personal re-
generation and holiness (John 3:l-8). (Rom. 4:2, S:1;
Gal. 2:16, 3:11, etc.)
5. The development of a system of type, symbol, and
prophecy that would serve to identify the Messiah at His
coming, and to establish the divine origin of the entire
Christian System. (1 Cor, 10:11, Rom. 15:4, -Heb. lO:l,
etc.) Most of the charcters, institutions and events of
the Old Covenant were designed to be types (shadows)
of Christ and His Church. Adam, Isaac, Joseph, Moses,
Joshua, David, Jonah, etc., were all typical of Christ in
certain respects. The deliverance of Noah from the un-
godly antediluvian world, through water as the transitional
t, was typical of our deliverance from the bondage
and corruption of sin, through baptism, again the transi-
tional element through which deliverance is consummated
190
/

WHAT GOD DID THRU ISRAEL
(1 Pet. 3:20-21, Ga1.’3:27, John 3:3-5). The Tabernacle
and the Temple were successively types, in even their
minute details, of the Church. The Paschal Lamb, the
Smitten Rock, the Brazen Serpent, etc., were metaphors
of Christ. The Levitical Priesthood was typical of the
priesthood of all Christians. In fact the entire Mosaic
System was, in its essential features, typical of the Chris-
tian System. Typology is a most convincing proof of the
divine origin of the Scriptures, for it must be admitted
that the points of resemblance between the types and their
corresponding antitypes were designed and preordained by
the same God who established them and revealed them
through His Holy Spirit. In addition to the types and
symbols, there are some three hundred prophetic statements
in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life and
ministry of Jesus and in the details of the constitution of
His Church and His Kingdom. What more evidence could
any honest and intelligent person require, to convince him
that Jesus is truly the Christ, the Son of the living God?
(Matt. 16: 16.)
6. Finally, the giving to the world of the Messiah
Himself, the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and
David, through the Virgin Mary, by the “overshadowing”
of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 3:16, Luke 1:26-38; Gen. 22:18,
Gen. 49:lO; Num. 24:17, Rev. 22:16, Heb. 7:14, Rev.
5:J; Isa. 9:6-7, 1l:l-2; Rom. 1:l-4, Matt. 1:1, Heb. 7:14,
etc.)
In view of this array of evidence that our God piled
up in olden times as preparatory to the full disclosure of
His Eternal Purpose, His Plan of Redemption, two funda-
mental truths present themeslves to us:
1. That one can ascertain this divine truth-the con-
tent of this revelation-only by treating the Bible m a
whole. For, as Augustine put it hundreds of years ago,
In the Old Testament we have the New Testament
concealed,
191

GENESIS :
In the New Testament we Kave the Old Testament
revealed.
2. That the very people to whom all this evidence was
revealed, and through whom it was preserved for future
generations, should reject the evidence and reject the Redeemer
whom it identified so clearly, becomes the ironyand
the most profound tragedy-of all the ages. This
tragedy is expressed in one simple statement by John the
Beloved, “He came unto his own, and they that were his
own received him not” (John 1:ll; cf. John J:40, Matt.
23:37-39, 27:25; Acts 7:51-53).
History’s Message to Man
(Gen. 15:16)
Can any over-all purposiveness be discovered in his-
tory? Does history have any lessons for us? Does it have
any meaning? There are those who have answered affirm-
atively, but with considerable variability of interpretation.
There are those who answer in the negative. History,
they say, is simply the record of man’s Will to Live, to
resist extinction, to just keep on going on, but without
any predetermined end or goal. Popeye’s “philosophy”
expresses this negative view fairly well, “I yam what I
yam,”
It is interesting to note that all prevailing “philoso-
phies” of history arose in ancient Greece. Herodotus, “the
father of history,” who lived in the 5th century B.C.,
originated what has come to be known as the ethical
philosophy of history. His view was that history is
largely the record of the work of the goddess Nemesis,
Retributive Justice, who inevitably interferes in the affairs
of men to overthrow inordinate human pride, ambition,
and arrogance. Theydides (ca. 471 -400 B.C.) adopted
the strictly secularistic theory of history, namely, that the
events of history are brought about by purely secular
(chiefly economic) causes; that human events are the
192

HISTORY’S MESSAGE TO MAN
consequences of purely human causes, apart from oracular,
superhuman or supernatural influences. Polybius (ca.
20J-125 B.C,) was the first to propose the fatalistic view,
that all events of history are foreordained by a Sovereign
Power bearing the name of Destiny or Fortune. Polybius
was a Stoic, and this was Stoic doctrine. The secularistic
interpretation has been revived in modern times, first by
Machiavelli, then by Thomas Hobtes; and finally by Marx
and Lenin, with their theory of economic determinism and
their substitution of expediency for morality. The fatal-
istic interpretation is represented in our day by the work
of Oswald Spengler, The Decliiie of the West‘. According
to Spengler, every culture inevitably passes through four
successive periods corresponding respectively to the four
seasons-spring, summer, fall and winter-the last-named
being the period of decay that terminates in death, the
period that is best designated that of cccivilization.’’
Spengler was a pessimist: there is no escape from this
remorseless cycle, according to his view. The ethicd in-
terpretation, in broad outline, is represented today in the
thinking of such men as Berdyaev, Sorokin, Schweitzer, and
Toynbee. Toyn bee’s elaborately -worked -out theory is
known as that of challenge and response, According to
Toynbee, Christian “civilization” or culture must meet
three primary needs or challenges: the need to establish a
constitutional system of cooperative world government
(politically), the need to find a workable compromise be-
tween free enterprise and socialism (economically), and
the need to put the secular superstructure back on a re-
ligious foundation, that in which the dignity and worth
of the person is made the supreme ethical norm. Toynbee’s
over-all thesis is that our Western culture will survive only
if it responds in a positive way to these basic needs or
challenges. Augustin8 (in his great work, The City of
God) interprets the function of the secular state to be
the preservation of order whereby the righteous can culti-
193

GENESIS
vate the Spiritual Life here that is befitting that of the
Heavenly City. Montesquieu: the end of the state is its
own self-preservation. Hegel: the end of the state is its
self -glorification to the achievement of which individual
citizens are but the means: indeed the state is God on
the march. The present-day totalitarian state, whether
Communistic, Nazi, or Fascist, is the concrete embodiment
of Hegel’s state-ism. . . I -
In Genesis 15:16, we have an tion of what may
properly be called the providential reation of history.
This doctrine is given us in its fullness in Jeremiah, ch.
18, vv. 5-10. It may be stated as follows:
1. God rules the world. But within the framework of
His Providence both individuals and nations are left rela-
tively free to work out their own history and ultimate
destiny. God exercises sovereignty over the whole creation.
He owns it all (Psa. 24:l-2, 19:l-6, 8:3-9, 148:l-6; Psa.
j0:12, 89:ll; Isa. 45:18, 46:8-11; 1 Cor, 10:26). “You
can’t take it with you” is infinitely more than a cliche:
it is absolutely truth (cf. Luke 16:19-31). The redeemed
are in a special sense God’s own: they are not their own,
they have been bought with a price, and that price was
the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 6:19-20, 7:23; Acts 20:28).
Law is the expression of the will of the Lawgiver: hence,
what scientists call laws of nature are simply the laws of
God. His Will is the constitutjon of the Totality of Being.
In the unforgettable lines of Maltbie D. Babcock’s great
hymn :
“This is my Father’s World,
And to my listening ears,
All nature sings, and round me rings
The music of the
This is my Father
I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
His hand the wonders wrought,”
194

HISTORY’S MESSAGE TO MAN
At the same time, however, God has chosen to recog-
nize man’s freedom of will with which he has been en-
dowed from the beginning and without which he would
not be man. God chooses to allow man to exercise this
freedom of choice. Men are predestined to be free, and
their free choices constitute God’s foreknowledge. God
does not rule His inoral world by coercion.. He does not
burglarize our wills. He surrounds us with the necessary
means to physical and spiritual life and growth and then
looks to us to work out our own salvation within the
framework of His Providence, holding us accountable in
the long run for the deeds we have done in the flesh.
(John 5:29, Rom. 2:6, Phil. 2:12, Acts 17:31, Rom. 14:10,
2 Cor. S:10, Rev. 20:13).
The same is true of nations as of individuals. God does
not rule the affairs of nations by force. He allows them
to work out their own history and destiny under the aegis
of His Providence. At the same time, however, he ouer-
rules (overthrows, Ezek. 2 1 : 27) peoples and their rulers
when pride, ambition, greed, and arrogance may impel
them into schemes of world conquest. For the simple
fact is that God has reserved universal sovereignty for the
only One worthy of it, His Only Begotten (Phil. 2:9-10,
1 Cor. 15 :20-28, Rev. 11 : 1 5 ) , In every great conflict in
which the forces of righteousness haue been challenged by
the combined powers of evil, the evil powers haue always
gone down to defeat. 1 know of no exceptiolz to this
Principle in all human history. Free men will never be
enslaved for any great length of time by would-be empire
builders.
2. Nations fall when they igizore and violate the moral
law and t h s make themselves vessels fit only for destruc-
tion.
(1) No better example of this fact can be cited than
that of the text before us. Abraham made his pilgrimage
of faith to the Land of Promise, lived there throughout

“ GENESIS’.’
liisdnatural life (as did also Isaac and, Jacob) without own-
ing a foot of Canaan’s soil excep e small plot of land
which he bought from Abimele a Canaanite prince,
for a burial ground. What is th lanatiori? It is that
of our text: the iniquity of the- Canaanites had not yet
reached the point where there w e righteous, no, not
one. We know this from the ess shown Abraham
by various Canaanite chieftain . 14:13, 20:1-18,
23:7-20, 26:6-11). Some four hundred years later when
Israel came out of Egypt under’ Moses and Joshua, the
Canaanites had become so given over to the grossest forms
of licentiousness and idolatry that 1 their very existence was
a moral blight on mankind. Therefore God gave them
up to destruction as nations when‘ the Israelites under
Joshua took possession of their land (cf. Lev. 18 :24-28).
(2)History is the story of the rise and fall of nations;
the stage on which history is acted out has rightly been
called the graveyard of nations. As expressed in Shelley’s
imperishable lines:
“ ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair.’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
And in the memorable lines of Kipling’s Recessional:
cc
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire-
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget-lest we forget!”
(3) Nations do not die of old age: they perish when
they die of a rotten heart. They die when they cease to
be ,fit :to go on living (Cf. Abraham’s intercession for
Sodom and Gomorrah: not even ten righteous souls could
196

HISTORY’S MESSAGE TO MAN
be found therein (Gen, 18:22-33). (For the opposite side
of the coin, see 1 Ki. 19:9-18, Rom. 11:2-4).
(4) There are times in the course of human events
when the destruction of a nation’s power becomes a moral
necessity. Cf, Exo, 17:14. In the namby-pamby notions
of God that men seem to have today, He takes on the
status of a glorified bellhop, or that of a kindly old gentle-
man up in the sky who will permit his beard to be pulled,
with impunity, by every rogue that happens to pass by.
Our God is the God of love, to be sure; but He is also
Absolute Justice. Lacking this Absolute Justice, He simply
could not be God. The God of the Bible is still, and
always, the Lord of Hosts (1 Sam. 1 : 11, 2 Sam. 6:2; Psa.
59:5, 24:lO; Isa. 6:3; Mal. 1:14, etc.). The unreedemed
will discover, when it is everlastingly too late, that our
God is truly “a consuming fire” (Deut. 4:24, Heb. 12:29,
Rev. 6: 12-17).
Conclusioiz: God’s “philosophy” of history is clearly
stated in Jer. 18:5-10. It may be stated in a single
sentence: the stability of a nation or natiolzal state de-
pe,nds on the ethical quality of the national life. This is
true, regardless of the type of regime, whether that be a
tyranny, a monarchy, or a democracy.
How fitting, then, these lines, again from Kippling’s
Recessional:
“The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart-
Still stands Thine ancient Sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget-lest we forget!”
As Christians we look forward with keen anticipation
to the return of our Lord to receive His church into
eternal Glory and to Judge the living and the dead (Acts
17:31, 10:42; Matt. 25:31-46; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess.
197

10; 2 Tim. 4:l; 1
1. Show the fallacy of the alleged composite character
of ch. 15.
2. Can measured time sequence b t tributed to prophe tic
vision? Explain. ’ >
3. What are the four parts into which the content of
ch, 15 divides? ,r
4. Where does the phrase, “the word of Yahtve,” first
appear in Scripture? 4 -
5. How does Whitelaw explain this designation?
6. What in all likelihood was the cause of Abram’s
as alluded to in v. 13?
7. Explain the Divine assurance, “I am thy shield and
thy exceeding great reward.”
8. What was the character of Abram’s response to this
Divine assurance? Explain.
9. What ancient custom prevailed concerning an heir in
instances of couples who remained childless?
10. Explain the distinction in customary law between the
direct heir and the indirect heir.
11. What was Yahweh’s promise in response to Abram’s
complaint ? c
12. What was the sign by which God confirmed the
promise ?
13. Explain what is meant by “righteousness” (v. 6).
14. Explain as fully as possible the meaning of v. 6.
How and where is this meaning developed in the New
Testament ?
11. Differentiate works of the law (Paul) and works
of faith (James).
16. What .more profound meaning must be attributed to
the term faith in the light of these Scriptures?
198
8

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
2 6.
27.
28.
29.
3 0.
31.
32.
33.
3 4.
THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 15 : 12- 17
State Cornfeld’s explanation of the term “covenant.’’
What is to be inferred from the fact that Biblical
Hebrew has no words for “goddess” or “religion”?
What sign did God give Abram to confirm the latter’s
possession of the Land?
Explain ancient ritual procedure in the establishing
of a covenant. How did this differ from the ritual of
sacrifice?
Explain what was meant by the phrase, “to cut a
covenant.”
What was symbolized by the “smoking furnace”?
By the “flaming torch”?
What was symbolized by the birds of prey? By their
dispersal?
Explain the symbolism of the various details of this
sign as given in SIBG,
Explain what is meant by the Oracle. List the
specifics of it, vv. 13-16.
How is the time element to be understood in relation
to a preternatural sleep? Explain, in relation to v.
12.
Summarize Leupold’s explanation of Abram’s “deep
sleep” experience.
Summarize Lange’s explanation of it.
In what sense can it be said that God here revealed
to Abram future events in the life of the Promised
Seed?
What were the personal aspects of the Divine promise?
What was involved in the promise that Abram should
“go unto his fathers”?
What were the probable reasons why the identity of
the oppressing nation was not revealed at this time?
What fact about Himself did God demonstrate by
the events of the Deliverance?
What were the judgments inflicted on the oppressing
nation?
199

0 .
35.
3 6.
37.,
3 8.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52..
Summarize Durant’s comment on; Egyptian “religion.*’
What were the characteristic features of this “religion”?
How were the great Plagues
idolixtry? 1 ’
What were to be the boundaries.of the-Promised-Land?
Explain what is meant by the “River of Egypt.”
Did the Israelites ever extend their dominion to the
full extent of the limits named,:Iie If’ ‘so) when?
If not, why not?
How account for the differenies. in, the various Old
Testament listings of the inhabitants of the Land of
Promise?
Who were the Amorites in the* most inclusive sense
of the name? What was their. great cultural center
and where located?
Why was the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage
to be delayed 400 years?
What great ethical lesson does this have for us?
By what incidents do we know that the Amorites
(and Canaanites in general) were not yet wholly
given over to iniquity?
Summarize Murphy’s analysis of v. 16.
How does Exo. 12:40 appear in the Septuagint and
Samaritan versions respectively?
What is the time-span problem involved here?
What reasons does Whitelaw give for preference for
the Hebrew text?
How does Leupold resolve this time-span problem?
What feasible explanation can be given of the Apostle’s
time-span, Gal. 3 : 17?
What is the literal meaning of the Hebrew word dor,
translated “generation” here?
What.- is the probable significance of the phrase, v.
16, “in the fourth generation”?
200
-. i

J3.
54.
5 J.
J 6.
J7.
58.
79.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
THE PROMISE AND COVENANT 1 5 : 12-17
Summarize Whitelaw’s proposed solution of this time-
span problem. ‘
Summarize Lange’s proposed solution of it.
Repeat the stages of the revelation of the Promise as
given by Lange.
How do God’s covenants differ from agreements or
compacts among men?
What did the covenant idea mean to Israel?
Explain: “Biblical covenants are not agreements be-
tween equals.”
In what way did Yahweh ratify the covenant with
Abraham regarding the seed and the land?
What was the character of the reciprocal relation
between Yahweh and Abram in this covenant?
Trace the development of the covenant as given by
Sc hul tz.
What are the two interrelated parts of ch. IJ? Show
how the emphasis shifts from personal to world
history in the latter part.
What did God do, through the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham, in the unfolding of His Eternal Purpose?
What is history’s message to mankind?
What briefly are the ethical, secularistic, and fatalistic
philosophies of history?
By what Greek historians respectively were these three
views presented? Name modern exponents of these
views.
What is Augustine’s theory of the function of the
secular state?
What was Hegel’s philosophy of the state? In what
political systems was it objectified?
State clearly God’s “philosophy’’ of history as given
in Jeremiah 1 8 : 5 - 10.
For Whom alone has our God reserved universal
sovereignty? Give Scriptures to confirm pour answer.
201

PART TWENTY-NINE
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
‘THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
(16:l-16)
1. The Biblical Account.
1 Now Sarai, Abranz’s wife, bare him no children;
and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was
Hagar. 2 And Sarai said unto Abrak, Behold now, Jehovah
bath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto
my handmaid; it may be that I shall obtain children by
her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And
Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her hand-
maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the lmd of Ca-
naan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife.
4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and
when she saw that she had coizceived, her mistress was
despised in her eyes. 5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My
wrong be upon thee: I gave m y handmaid into thy bosom;
and when she saw that she bad conceived, I was despised
in her eyes; Jehovah judge between me and thee. 6 But
Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand;
do to her that which is good in thine eyes. And Sard dealt
hardly with her, and she fled from her face.
7 And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fcntnhin
of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to
Shur. 8 And he said, Hagar, Surai’s handmaid, whence
camest thou? and whither goest thou? And she said, I am
fleeing from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9 And .the
angel of Jehovah said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and
submit thyself wader her hands. 10 And the angel of
Jehovah said unto her, I will greatly multiply thy seed,
that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the
angel of Jehovah said unto her, Behold, thou art with
child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name
Ish’ael, because Jehovah bath heard thy affliction. 12
202

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
And he shall be as a wild ass among men; his band shall
be agaivst every iizaii, and every wail’s hand agaiiist him;
aiid he shall dwell ouer against all his brethren. 13 And
she called the name of Jehovah that spake wto her, Tho%
art a God that seetb: for she said, Have I euen here looked
after hiin that seeth me? 14 Wherefore the well was called
Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is betweeiz Kadesh and Bered.
1 J Aiid Hagar bare Abrain a son: ai$d Abraqn called
the naiize of his SO~Z, whoin Hagar bare, Ishmael. 16 Aizd
Abravz was foimcore aiid six years old, when Hagar bare
Ishael to Abram.
2, The Domestic Drama in Abrain’s Household (vv.
1-6).
The story of Hagar aiid Ishnael has real value for the
believer. It conveys a lesson both profound and practical.
Abram, it will be recalled, was seventy-five years old when
he left Haran on receiving God’s covenantal Promise (Gen.
12:4) in which the promise of seed was inherent. Now
Abram had reached the age of eighty-five (16:3) and the
promise of seed had not been fulfilled and indeed seemed
impossible of fulfillment in view of the fact that Sarai
had passed the normal age of childbearing. Of course, as
far as we can know, it had not been explicitly stated that
Sarai was the destined mother of the long-promised and
anxiously-awaited son; it seems unreasonable, however, to
assume anything to the contrary. Therefore, as the prospect
of her contributing to the fulfillment of the Promise
became more and more remote, she seems to have reached
the conclusion that this honor was not reserved for her,
and proceeded to take matters into her own hands. She
persuaded her husband to take her handmaid, Hagar, an
Egyptian, as a kind of secondary wife (concubine), that by
her he might obtain what had been denied her (Sarai) .
Abram evidently was not averse to the arrangement: he
consorted with Hagar, and the Egyptian conceived.
203

16: 1-16 GENESIS
The consequences of this unfortunate evertt-unfortu-
nate because both ill-conceived and ill-timed (because the
persons involved were not willing to await God’s own time
to fulfill the Promise)-seem to be never-ending. After
all, it was God’s own Promise that was involved: they
needed only to await His will in the matter. Instead of
so doing, however, they proceeded to take the situation in
hand themselves. In spite of the many instances cited us
of Abraham’s faith, and in spite of the high evaluation of
his faith in the New Testament writings, the fact remains
that in this instance his faith was wanting in integrity,
else he should have rebuked Sarai for her impatience. (But
how many professing Christians in our day (or in any
other day, for that matter) would have the faith to hold
out for God’s time in a similar situation? We are in-
clined to think, Very, very few! After all, Abram and
Sarai were human, and we have here one of the most far-
reaching of human interest stories in literature, and also
another proof of the realism of the Biblical record. It is
a record in which life is portrayed exactly as men and
women lived it, with their frailties as well as their virtues,
and their sorrows and disillusionments as well as their joys.
The sum and substance of the matter is that the conse-
quences of Sarai’s rash act failed to bring happiness to any
9f the persons directly involved (not to mention the
innocent victim, Ishmael). In’ a moment of elation which
begat a false pride, Hagar mocked her mistress, who in turn
was outraged (she had lost “face” in the eyes of the
Egyptian) and vented her spleen on both Abram and
Hagar despite the fact they had done only what she her-
self had persuaded them to do. The net result was a
domestic .mess in which Hagar and her son, both indirectly
involved, - suffered the greater injustices; a situation which
is having repercussions in‘ world history even in our own
time, the twentieth century.
204

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
Archeological discoveries have fully substantiated the
details of this incident which occurred some eighteen or
twenty centuries prior to the beginning of the Christian
era. The practice of a slave woman bearing a child for
a childless wife is strange indeed from the point of view
of the Western world. But that this was a common prac-
tice in the patriarchal world is evident from two sources
especially, namely, the Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi
tablets. Excavations at Nuzi (or Nuzu), an ancient
city of northern Mesopotamia east of the Tigris-the site
is now near Kirkuk in Iraq-have uncovered thousands of
clay tablets in cuneiform script most of which date back
to the 15th and 16th centuries before Christ, at the time
when the town was under Hurrian (Ilorite) domination.
From Par. 146 of the Code of Hammurabi we learn that
a priestess of certain rank who was free to marry but not
to bear children, gave her husband a slave girl in order to
provide him with a son. We learn that if the concubine
should then have tried to arrogate unto herself a social
status of equality with her mistress, the wife should have
downgraded her to her former standing as a slave. The
wife, however, did not have the right to sell her to others,
Speiser (ABG, 120) : “This law is applicable to the case
before us in that (a) the childless wife must herself pro-
vide a concubine, (b) the successful substitute must not
forget her place. But these provisions are restricted to
certain priestesses for whom motherhood was ruled out.
No such limitations applied to Sarah.’’ Her case is covered
fully, however, in one of the published texts from Nuzi.
Here we have an account of a socially prominent family
(of no special religious commitments) in which the wife
who is childless is required to provide a slave girl as concu-
bine in order that the husband may have an heir. The
wife, however, will have legal rights to the offspring.
Moreover, if the formerly childless couple should later have
a child of their own, they could not thrust out the child
201

16~1-16 GENESIS
of the secondary wife, “The other provisions of the Nuzi
case are likewise paralleled in our narrative: Sarah is child-
less, and it is she herself who has pressed a concubine on
Abraham (v. 5). What Sarai did, then, was not SO much
in obedience to an impulse as in conformance with the
family law of the Hurrians, a society whose customs the
patriarchs knew intimately and followed often” (ABG,
121). (HSB, 27) : “Archeological evidence of Nuzi CUS-
toms indicate that in some marriage eontracts a childless
wife was required to furnish a substitute for her husband.
In oriental eyes, childlessness was the greatest of tragedies.
Nuzu custom stipulated further that the slave wife and
her children could not be sent away. Thus the action of
Sarah and Abraham was undoubtedly consonant with the
customs of that day.” (JB, 31) : “According to Meso-
potamian law a barren wife could present one of her
female slaves to the husband and acknowledge the issue as
her son. The same is to happen in Rachel’s case, 3O:l-6,
and in Leah’s, 30:9-13.”
The persona! element in this story is interwoven with
the societal and legal: “the basic conflict is between certain
specific legal rights and natural human feelings.” V. 2-
Note that Sarai ascribes her failure to bear children to
Yahweh‘s not *having given them to her. Said she, Yahweh
has shut up my womb, ;.e., restrained me from bearing.
Does Sarah’s action in this case stem from her lack of
specific knowledge that she was to be the mother of
Abram’s child? Or, did she take matters into her own
hands and proceed to .resolve the problem on her own
authority, motivated to some extent by her impatience
with God? Certainly her manner of speech indicates a
certain measure of PetzLZance. Said she to Abram, “Suppose
you go’in. unto my handmaid (Le., cohabit with her) that
perhaps I may be ilt up by her, ie., that I may have
chifdren by her.” And Abra+ “hearkened” to his wife’s
“voice;” that is, he showed no hesitancy in approving her
206

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
suggestion. V. 3-Sarah then took Hagar and gave her
(Le,, gave her in marriage) to her husband. This happened
after ten years of dwelling in the Promised Land, when
Abram was eighty-five years old and his wife seventy-five.
Truly they had been awaiting God’s fulfillment of the
Promise a long, long time, but, as we see it today in the
light of the Christian revelation, God could hardly have
made known to them His design to produce a birth out of
the natural order of such events which would prefigure the
Supreme Begetting and Birth of Messiah (Luke 1:34-35).
Still and all, should not their faith have remained steadfast
that God would keep His commitment to them? V. 4-
When Hagar knew she had conceived, “her mistress was
lessened in her eyes,” that is, Sarah lost caste in the eyes
of the Egyptian. V. J-that Hagar’s superciliousness irri-
tated Sarai was perfectly natural: what other reaction
might have been expected? The Code of Hammurabi
states expressly that a slave girl who was elevated to the
status of concubine could not claim equality with her
mistress (par. 146). After all, a genuine privilege had
been granted Hagar, one which she might well have ap-
preciated. Of course the whole transaction was not in
accord with the will of God: The Child of Promise could
hardly have been the offspring of an Egyptian. Moreover,
as we have noted above, Sarah had acted in accord with
prevailing Mesopotamian law. Hence we are not surprised
to read that she complained to Abram about the contempt
which she had received from her maid, saying, “Let this
injustice come upon thee: now Yahweh must judge be-
tween us” (that is, between Sarai and Abram. (Cf. Gen.
27:13, Jer. 51:35, Judg. 11:27, 1 Sam. 24:15). “I myself
put my maid in your lap,” said Sarai; “not just a fanciful
expression, but recognized legal phraseology” (ABG, 11 8) .
Certainly this was a very imprudent act, even had it not
been actually sinful. In calling on Yahweh to “referee”
the case, commentators generally agree that this was an
2 07

16:l-16 GENESIS
irreverent use of the Divine Name and that Sarah’s speech
was a tirade which exhibited great passion. Abrarn re-
plied,.The maid is in your hands: deal with her as you see
fit. In holding her husband responsible Sarai was well
within her legal rights, we are told, as indicated by patriar-
chal law; Abram, in turn gave her full power to act as
mistress toward the maid without elevating the slave, who
had been made a concubine, above her original status. In
the attitude of the patriarch do we detect an evidence of
his peaceful disposition, or his recognition of the fact that
he had already discovered his mistake in expecting the
promised seed through Hagar, or an attitude of weakness
in yielding to Sarai’s invective, or an unjustifiable wrong
inflicted on the future mother of his child? (Cf. PCG,
226). “Sarah, despite the undertaking that Hagar’s sons
would. be counted as hers (Gen. 16:2) and thus have a
claim to the inheritance, sought to drive Hagar away (Gen.
2 1 : 10) . Abraham acted against the contemporary custom
only when given a special assurance from God that he
should do so (verse 12) ” (NBD, 69). At any rate Sarah
dealt harshly with Hagar, we are told; literally “applied
force to her, threatened her with violence” (ABG, 118)-
Obviously the treatment was severe enough to cause the
Egyptian maid “to flee from the face of her mistress” (v. 8 ).
In evaluating tbe actions and reactims of the drurnaik
personae of this &man-exceedingly human-interest story,
commentators find themselves hard pressed to try to justify
the conduct of the three involved. Some, of course, are
inclined to be more lenient than others, as will be noted
from the following excerpts. (HSB, 27): “When Abra-
ham was eighty-six years of age Hagar gave birth to
Ishmael (1 6: 16). This incident reveals how two genuine
believers may seek to fulfill God’s will by normally accept-
able methods but spiritually carnal ones. The promise of
God was not to Hagar but to Sarah. Sarah suggested the
use of Hagar, and Abraham consented to the arrangement.
208

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
Both were guilty. The birth of Ishmael introduced a
people (the nucleus of the later Mohammedans) which has
been a challenge both to the Jews and the Christian Church.
It was not until Abraham was a hundred years old that
Isaac was born (21 : S) . From the length of time between
the promise and the fulfillment we can draw the lessons
that God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are
higher than our thoughts (Isa. $5:8, 9). Patient waiting
would have produced the desired results without the addi-
tional problems created by impatience and lack of faith.
God always rewards those who have faith to believe His
promises.” Speiser (ABG, 119) : “At the personal level,
from which the author starts out, the basic conflict is
between certain specific legal rights and natural human
feelings. We know now the pertinent legal measures as
illustrated by the Laws of Hammurabi and the Nuzi docu-
ments. The juridicial background of the issue before us
is as complex as it is authentic, a circumstance that makes
the unfolding drama at once more poignant and intelli-
gible. All three principals in the case have some things in
their favor and other things against them. Sarah is thus
not altogether out of order when she bitterly complains
to Abraham that her rights have not been honored (5).
Beyond all the legal niceties, however are the tangled emo-
tions of the characters in the drama: Sarah, frustrated and
enraged; Hagar, spirited but tactless; and Abraham, who
must know that, whatever his personal sentiments, he may
not dissuade Sarah from following the letter of the law.”
“The custom of a barren wife giving her handmaid to her
husband in order that she might obtain children by her is
further attested by 30: 3, according to which the childless
Rachel gave her maid Bilhah to Jacob, and by 30:9, where
Leah, who had “ceased bearing,” gave him Zilpah. The
children born of such a union were thus reckoned as the
children not of the handmaid, but of the wife, by adoption,
the slave girl being delivered on the knees of her mistress
209

16~1-16 GENESIS
(cf. 30: 3). Sarah, however, is unable to go through with
the arrangement. Hagar’s contempt for her childlessness
(v. 4), being more than she can stand. Unreasonably she
blames Abraham. The verse throws a significant light upon
the tensions inevitable in a polygamous household.’’ (IBG,
60j). Lange (CDHCG, 418) : “The moral motive or
impulse of seeking the heir of blessing, made availing to an
erroneous and selfish degree, is here torn away from its
connection with the love impulse or motive, and exalted
above its importance. The substitution of the maid for
the mistress, however, must be distinguished from polygamy
in its peculiar sense. Hagar, on the contrary, regards herself-in
the sense of polygamy, as standing with Sarai,
and as the favored, fruitful wife, exalts herself above her.
The shadow of polygamy resting on the patriarchal monog-
amy. Isaac’s marriage is free from this.
It has the purest
New Testament form. Rebecca appears, indeed, to have
exercised a certain predominant influence, as the wife often
does in the Christian marriage of modern times.’’
Jamieson (CECG, 149) : “Abram being a man of peace,
as well as affectionately disposed towards his wife, left her
to settle these broils in her own way. In all households
where concubinage exists, the principal wife retains her
supreme authority over the inferior ones; and in cases
where a slave is brought into the relation with her master
that Hagar held to Abram, the maid-servant remains in
her former position unchanged, or although some more
attentions may be paid to her, she is as much subject to
the absolute control of her mistress as before. Sarai, left
by Abram to act at discretion, exerted her full authority.”
Keil and Delitzsch (BCOTP, 219) : “But as soon as Sarai
made her feel her power, Hagar fled. Thus, instead of
securing the fulfillment of their wishes, Sarai and Abram
had reaped nothibg but grief and vexation, and apparently
had lost the maid through their self-concerted scheme.
210

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
But the faithful covenant-God turned the whole into a
blessing.”
Leupold would be more lenient in dealing with the
principals in this narrative. (EG, 494) : “As is evident
from v. 16, Abram had been in the land about ten years.
If we consider the advanced age of Loth Abram and Sarai,
they had surely waited a long time. . . . To Sarai the
thought comes that perhaps constomary devices may be
resorted to. Women of standing like Sarai had their per-
sonal maids, who were their own in a special sense. They
were the personal property of the wife and were appointed
specially to wait upon her. The maid under consideration
here happened to be an Egyptian, having been acquired, no
doubt, during the brief stay in Egypt (12:lO ff.). The
custom of those days allowed in a case of this sort that
the wife give her maid to her husband as a secondary wife
in the hope that the new union would be blessed with off-
spring, which offspring would then promptly be claimed
and adopted by the mistress. No stigma was attached to
the position of the maid: she was a wife, though not, in-
deed, of the same social standing as the first wife. For
Sarai to take such a step certainly involved self-sacrifice,
even a kind of self-effacement. It was this rather noble
mode of procedure on Sarai’s part that may in part have
blinded the patriarch’s eyes so that he failed to discern the
actual issues involved. Then, also, if we consider the chief
servant, Eliezer, and the excellent faith he later displays
we may well suppose that the chief maid may have been
a woman who was indeed imbued with the faith that
reigned in the household and may modestly have been de-
sirous of having a part in the achievement of the high
purpose to which this household was destined. Yet, in
spite of all that may be said by way of extenuating the
fault of the parties involved, it was still a double fault and
sin. First, it clashed with the true conception of monog-
amous marriage, which alone is acceptable with God,
21 1

16~1-16 GENESIS
Secondly, it involved the employment of human devices
seemingly to bolster up a divine purpose which was in any
case destined to be achieved as God had originally ordained.
In so far the fault involved was unbelief.” Concerning v.
3, the same writer says, “It must be quite apparent that
‘to give as a wife’ must mean ‘to give in marriage.’ Here
was no concubinage but a formal marital union, though
Hagar was but the second wife” (ibid., p. 496). Again in
v. 4 (ibid., 497) : “Now at this point the evils of polygamy
begin to rear their ugly head. It is always bound to be the
fruitful mother of envy, jealousy, and strife. The baser
elements in man are unleashed by it. Each of the three
characters now appears to disadvantage. Yet we are not
compelled now to suppose that such extremes resulted as
Jamieson suggests-‘bursts of temper, or blows.’ The fine
praise that Peter bestows upon Sarai (1 Pet. 3:6) hardly
allows us to think of her as degenerating into a shrew.
When it is remarked of Hagar that ’her mistress was lightly
esteemed in her eyes,’ that need involve nothing more than
that she thought that God had bestowed upon her what
He had denied Sarai, and so she thought herself superior
to her mistress and showed her disdain in certain ways.
This attitude was bound to pain Sarai, who was, no doubt,
a woman of high position, while Hagar was only an Egyp-
tian slave.” Again, on v. 5 (ibid., 497) : “Now Sarai’s
judgment becomes impaired by the bitter feelings roused
in her. Hagar’s wrong leads Sarai to do further wrong.
Sin grows more involved. Sarai blames Abram for doing
what in reality she had suggested. At least, so it seems.
Luther attempts to avoid so crude a charge on her part by
supposing that she rather charges Abram with showing
certain preferences and honors to Hagar and so becoming
the cause of her arrogance. Then her charge would be
correct: ‘The wrong done to me is your fault.’ But the
explanation that follows does not interpret the wrong
thus. So we shall do better to call hers an unreasonable
212

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:1-16
charge growing out of her wounded pride. . . . The in-
justice of the charge made by Sarai might well have roused
Abram to a heated reply. Indeed with excellent self-
control he replies moderately.” Finally, on v. 6 (ibid.,
489-499): “Some charge Abram at this point with being
‘strangely unchivalrous.’ He is not suggesting cruelty to
Sarai nor condoning it. He is merely suggesting the natural
solution of the problem. In reality, Sarai is still Hagar’s
mistress. That relation has not really been cancelled.
Abram suggests that she use her right as mistress. He
does not, however, suggest the use of cruelty or injustice.
It is not really said that Sarai did what is unjustifiable.
Nor should it be forgotten that Hagar had begun to do
wrong and required correction. Apparently also, accord-
ing to the custom of the times, Abram had no jurisdiction
over Hagar directly, for she was esteemed Sarai’s maid.
The Hebrew idiom, ‘do what is good in thine eyes,’ is our,
‘do what pleases thee.’ Here, we believe, Sarai is usually
wronged. . . . Luther may well be followed, ‘wanted to
humble her.’ When the problem is approached, Sarai is
merely regarded as having taken steps to bring Hagar to
realize that she had begun to be somewhat presumptuous,
such as making her to live with the servants and perform
more menial tasks. But, of course, we must allow for
sinful excesses on her part. Sarai may not have proceeded
with due tact and consideration. In suggesting such a
course Abram may too have failed to counsel due caution.
Every actor in this domestic drama may have given evi-
dence of shortcomings in one way or another. Hagar, on
her part, being somewhat self-willed and independent, re-
fused to accept correction and ‘fled from her.’” (The
present writer cannot help feeling that the foregoing
evaluation of the emotions of the three characters in this
drama is a somewhat “watered down” version. The stu-
dent will have to decide these matters for himself. It is
213

16:1-16 GENESIS
well to have, or course, the various presentations of this
“domestic drama” so that it may be studied from all points
of view.)
Does the legal background reflected here cmforwz to
actual chronology? The Nuzi archives, we are told , gve i us
some of the most intimate pictures of life in an ancient
Mesopotamian community. Note well the following
(NBD, 69) : “The remarkable parallels between the customs
and social conditions of these peoples and the patriarchal
narratives in Genesis have led some scholars to argue from
this for a similar ljth-century date for Abraham and his
sons; but there is evidence that many of these customs had
been observed for some centuries, and that the Hurrians
were already a virile part of the population of N. Mesopotamia
and Syria by the 18th century B.C. These parallels
provide useful background information to the patriarchal
age, and are one of the external factors supporting
the historicity of this part of Genesis.”
The stories of Ishmael and Isaac also have to do, of
course, with the law of inheritance. Indeed this is at the
very root of the entire narrative, one might well say, of all
the patriarchal narratives. The problems also involves, as
we have already learned, the status of Abraham’s steward,
Eliezer of Damascus. Fortunately, the Nuzi archives make
clear the legal aspects of this matter which is stated as
fallows (NBD, 69) : “Normally the estate passed to the
eldest son, who. received a ‘double portion’ compared with
’ the younger. Should a man (or woman) have no sans,
he could adopt as a son a person from outside the family,
even if he was a slave. Such an adopted son was expected
to care for the man in his old age, to provide proper burial
and the maintenance of religious rites (including the pouring
of libations), and to continue the family name in return
for the property. This may explain Abram’s adoption of
Elieier as heir prior to the birth of Isaac (Gen. 1 :2-4).
Such agreements were legally void if the adopter subse-
214

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16~1-16
quently had a son of his own; the adoptee then took second
place. At Nuzi this process of adoption was extended to
become a fiction by which property, legally inalienable,
might be sold. A further way of ensuring an heir was the
custom, known also from earlier Babylonian texts, whereby
a childless wife would give her husband a substitute slave-
wife to bear sons. . . . Sarah, despite the undertaking that
Hagar’s sons would be counted as hers (Gen. 16:2) and
thus have a claim to the inheritance, sought to drive Hagar
away (Gen. 21:lO). Abraham acted against the con-
temporary custom only when given a special assurance
from God that he should do so (v. 12).” A survey of
Mesopotamian legal procedures will necessarily arise again
in our study of the careers of Isaac, Jacob, Esau, etc.
3. The Flight of Hagur (v. 6 ). It is difficult to avoid
the realistic conclusion, from the language that is used here,
that Sarai did actually deal “hardly” (ie., harshly) with the
I pregnant Egyptian maiden, so much so that the latter fled
1
from the presence of her mistress and did not stop until
she had gone a long way on the road to Shur. (1) The
name “Hagar” means “flight” or something similar; cf.
the Arab hegira. The name is Semitic, not Egyptian, and
perhaps was given to the woman by Abram himself, either
when he left Egypt or after her actual flight into the
desert. (2) The way to Shur was probably the ancient
transport route to Egypt from Beersheba. Shur itself was
a locality near the Egyptian border. The land was dry
and parched, and Hagar evidently did not waste any time
getting to the fountain (oasis) on this route. It seems
obvious that the Egyptian was on her way back to her
home country; having reached this spot, she had come far
enough from Abram’s tents to allow herself time to settle
her thoughts and feelings, and to look back upon her ex-
perience with more soberness and justness than she could
have had at the beginning of her flight. The time was
fitting for the Angel of the Lord to put in appearance.
21 $

16: 1-16 GENESIS
4. The Angel of the Lord: the Theojhany at the Well
(vv. 7-14). The scene is the fountain of water (as yet
nameless) in the desert . . . on the way to Sh~r. The
Angel of Yahwe (of Jehovah, of the Lord) “found” the
young woman (by design, of course) at this spot. The
Angel of Yahwe is “here introduced for the first time as
the medium of the theophany. . . . ‘Yahwe Himself in
self -manifestation,’ or, in other words, a personification of
the theophany. This somewhat subtle definition is founded
on the fact that in very many instances the Angel is at
once identified with God and differentiated from Him
(cf. vv. 10, 13 with v. 11)” (Skinner, ICCG, 286). Cf.
also “And the word was with God, and the Word was God,”
John 1:I). Certainly the Angel’s identity with Yahweh
is fully confirmed in v. 13. We present here Whitelaw’s
five arguments (PCG, 228) for the view that The Angel
of the Lord .here is not a created beilzg (hence not one
member of ?the innumerable hosts” of “ministering spirits,”
who figure repeatedly in the story of the unfolding of the
Plan of Redemption, Heb. 1:14, 12:22; Col. 1:16, Psa.
1.48:-2, 5, etc.), but the Divine Being Himself, as follows:
(1) He explicitly identifes Himself with Yahweh on vari-
ous occasions, (cf. v. 13 ) and with Elohim (Gen. 22: 12).
(2) Those to .whom He makes His presence known recog-
nize Him as divine (Gen. 16:13, 18:23-33, 28:16-22; Exo.
3:6; Judg. 6:ll-24; 13:21-22). (3) Biblical writers con-
stantly speak of him ai divine, calling him Jehovah without
the least reserve (Gen. 16:13, 18:1, 22:16; Exo. 3:2, Judg.
6:12). (4) The’doctrine here implied of a plurality of
persons in the Godhead is in complete accordance with
earlier foreshadowings (Gen. 1:26, 11:7). (r) “The or-
ganic unity of Scripture would be broken if it could be
proved that’the cerltral point in the Old Testament revela-
tion was a-creature angel, while that of the New is the in-
carnation af the Godhead” (cf. Col. 1:16-19, John 1:1-3,
14) , Certainly by the Old Testament writers the Angel
216

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16: 1-16
of the Lord is recognized as a superior being in a class by
Himself: a fact which raises the question, Is the Yahweh
of the Old Testament, the Covenant God, identical with
the Incarnate Logos (cf. Mic. j:2, John 10:17-18, 1 Cor,
10 : 1-4) ? Gosman (CDHCG, 41 6) : “The expression
[Angel of Jeliovah] appears here for the first time. While
the Angel of Jehovah is Jehovah himself, it is remarkable,
that in the very meaning of the name, as messenger, or one
who is sent, there is implied a distinction of persons in the
Godhead. There must be one who sends, whose message
he bears.” Lange (ibid., 416) : “That this Angel is identical
with Jehovah, is placed beyond question in vers. 13 and 14.
The disposition of Hagar, helpless, foresaken, with all her
pride, still believing in God, warned by her own conscience,
makes it altogether fitting that the Angel of Jehovah should
appear to her, Le., Jehovah himself, in his condescension-
manifesting himself as the Angel.” Note the following
comment also (JB, 33) : “In the most ancient texts the
angel of Yahweh, 22:11, Exo. 3:2, Judg. 2:1, or the angel
of God, 21:17, 31:11, Exo. 14:19, etc., is not a created
being distinct from God, Exo. 23:20, but God himself in
a form visible to man. V. 13 identifies the angel with
Yahweh. In other texts the angel of Yahweh is the one
who executes God’s avenging sentence: see Exo. 12:23 ff.”
Note the following summarization (ST, 319) : (1) The
Angel of Yahweh identifies Himself with Yahweh (Je-
hovah) or Elohim (Gen. 22:11, 16; 31:11, 13). (2) The
Angel of Yahweh is identified with Yahweh or with Elo-
him by others (Gen. 16:9, 13; 48:15, 16). (3) The
Angel of Yahweh accepts worship due only to God (Exo.
3:2, 4, f; Judg. 13:20-22. The “angel of the Lord” ap-
pears to be a human messenger in Hag. 1:13, a created
angel in Matt. 1:20, Acts 8:26, 12:7. Again, Strong (ST,
3 19) : “But commonly, in the O.T., the ‘angel of Jehovah‘
is a theophany, a self-manifestation of God. The only dis-
217

16:l-16 GENESIS
tinction is that between Jehovah in Himself and Jehovah
in manifestation. The appearances of “the angel of Je-
hovah” seem to be preliminary manifestations of the divine
Logos, as in Gen. 18:2, 13, in Dan. 3:25, 28. The N.T.
‘angel of the Lord’ does not permit, the O.T. ‘angel of
the Lord’ requires, worship (Rev. 22: 8, 9; cf. EXO. 3 : 8 ) .”
Again, ibid., “Though the phrase ‘angel of Jehovah’ is
sometimes used in the later Scriptures to denote a merely
human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old
Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to
designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in
angelic or human form foreshadowed His final coming in
the flesh.” (Cf. also John. 5:13-15, Gen. 15:18-20, Mic.
5:2; Exo. 14:19, 23:23, 32:34, 33:2, cf. 1 Cor. 1O:l-3;
2 Sam. 24:15-17, John 17:5, Rev. 19:ll-16, etc.). We
must recall here our fundamental thesis that the name
Elohim is used in the Old Testament to designate God the
Creator, and the name Yahweh (Yahwe, Jehovah) is used
to designate the Covenant God. There is but one God, of
course: hence the former name pictures Him in His omnip-
otence especially (Isa. 57: 15) , and the latter portrays Him
in His benevolence, goodness, etc., with respect to His
creatures, especially man. (Eph. 4:6, 1 Tim. 2:5).
The most thoroughgoing exposition of this title, the
Angel of Yahweh, or the Angel of the Lord, the Angel
of God, etc., is presented by Jamieson (CECG, 149) as
follows: “Angel means messenger, and the term is fre-
quently used in Scripture to denote some natural phenom-
enon, or visible symbol, betokening the presence and
agency of the Divine Majesty (Exo. 14:19, 2 KZ 19:35,
Psa. 104:4). That the whole tenor of this narrative [Gen.
16:7-141, however, indicates a living personal being, is
wriety of opinions are enter-
standing of the messenger
t he was a created angel, one
218

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
of those celestial spirits who were frequently delegated
under the ancient economies to execute the purposes of
God’s grace to his chosen; while others convinced that
things are predicated of this angel involving the possession
of attributes and powers superior to those of the most
exalted creatures, maintain that this must be considered a
real theophany, a visible manifestation of God, without
reference to any distinction of persons. To each of these
hypotheses insuperable objections have been urged : against
the latter, on the ground that ‘no man hath seen God at
any time’ (John 1:18, Col. 1:lj); and against the former,
founded on the historical circumstances of this narrative in
which ‘the angel of the Lord’ promises to do what was
manifestly beyond the capabilities of any created being
(v. lo), and also did himself what he afterward ascribed
to the Lord (cf. vv. 7, 8 with v. 11, last clause). The
conclusion, therefore, to which, on a full consideration of
the facts, the most eminent Biblical critics and divines
have come is, that this was an appearance of the Logos, or
Divine person of the Messiah, prelusive, as in many subse-
quent instances, to his actually incarnate manifestation in
the fullness of time (cf. Mic. 5:Z). Such was ‘the angel
of the Lord,’ the Revealer of the invisible God to the
Church, usually designated by this and the analogous titles
of ‘the messenger of the covenant’ and ‘the angel of his
presence.’ This is the first occasion on which the name
occurs; and it has been pronounced a myth, or at least a
traditionary legend, intended to throw a halo of dignity
and mysterious interest on the origin of the Arabs, by re-
cording the special interposition of heaven in behalf of a
poor, destitute Egyptian bondwoman, their humble an-
cestress. But the objection is groundless: the divine mani-
festation will appear in keeping with the occasion, when it
is borne in mind that ‘the angel of the Lord,’ in guiding
and encouraging Hagar, was taking care about the seed
of Abraham.”
219

1.6: l-ldj ’ GENESIS I ; ; - ’.,
The Angel’s qzbestion, v. 8, revea1s.q mysterious knowledge
of. Hagar’s experiences, desigped, it would seem, to
impress the fugitive “with a full conviction of the super.
natural, the divine character of the,> speaker, and a lively
sense of her sin in abandoning the station in which His
providence had placed her.”
The Aegel’s Comwzand: Hagar must return-, to her
mistress, that is, she must correct the exi$ti>ng* ,wrong she
has done, her self-willed departure iyom her regulai. status
in life; for Sarai is still mistress, by- .?he-Egyptian’s own
admission (v. 8). The accomplishment of her1 sonls great
destiny must depend on her maintai,fiing proper, connections
with Abram’s family. She inqst put duty first, and
retrace her steps to Hebron. “Plain, - dutiful submission
. . is sufficient for Hagar; nor would Sarai, after this
experience with the Angel became known, have asked any
more.”
The Angel’s Revelations were three: (1) she must
return and submit herself to her mistress, v. 9; (2) she will
be the ancestress of countless offspring, v. 10; (3) She
shall bear a son and this son shall bear a name that shall
always be a reminder to ail1 concerned that God in a very
signal way heard the cry of this woman in her hour of great
distress, v. 1 1. “Ishmael” means literally “God hears.”
“Yahweh hath heard thy affliction”: the inference is unavoidable
that Hagar in her distress had cried out to the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It should be noted
that the three consecutive verses here, 9, 10, 11, begin with
the same statement, “And the Angel of Yahweh said unto
her.”
5. The Prophecy Concerning Ishmael and His Seed
(vv. 11, 12).
(1) By disposition Ishmael shall be “a wild ass of a
man”: “a fine image of the free intractable Bedouin
character which is to be manifested in Ishmael’s descen-
220

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
dants” (Skinner,, ICCG, 287), Ishmael will be among
human families what the wild ass is among animals (cf,
Job 39:J-8, Jer. 2:24), “Ishmael descendants are the
desert Arabs who are as intractable and vagrant as the wild
ass” (JB, 3 3) (2) “His haiid shall be against every man,
aiid every ma/i’s hand against hiiii,” thus descriptive of
“the rude, turbulent, and plundering character of the
Arab? (Jamieson, CECG, 150) . This describes “most
truly the incessant state of feud, in which the Ishmaelites
live with one another ‘or with their neighbors” (Keil and
Delitzsch, (BCOTP, 220). (3) “Awd he shall dwell over
agaiiist all his bYefhreii” (“over against” means “to the
east,” cf. 2 li : 1 8). The geographical meaning is included
here, but much greater significance is to be attached to this
statement. Ishmael and his progeny shall live in defiance
or disregard of their own kinsmen (cf. Deut. 21:16, “to
the disregard of” the older son of the unloved wife).
This passage indicates also that “Ishmael would maintain
an independent standing before (in the presence of) all
the descendants of Abraham. History has confirmed this
promise. The Ishmaelites have continued to this day in
free and undiminished possession of the extensive peninsula
between the Euphrates, the Straits of Suez, and the Red
Sea, from which they have overspread both Northern
Africa and Southern Asia” (Keil-Delitzsch, ibid., p. 22 1).
VV. 13-14. Hitherto Hagar’s position had been grow-
ing increasingly difficult, but now she knew that Yahweh
cares, that He was looking after her, that He is “a God
who sees.” She aptly invents the name for Yahweh, El
Roi. “El Roi means ‘God of vision.’ Lakai Roi may
mean, the well ‘of the Living One who sees me’; to this
place Isaac was to come, 24:62, 2li:ll” (JB, 33). (To
Hagar, Yahweh was the “God who sees” in the sense of
being the “God who cares.” Leupold (EG, 506) : “No
mortal to whom God appeared ventured to look directly

116: 1-16 GENESIS 1 1 ‘1 , ‘ J
into or upon the glorious countenance of the Lord. Even
Moses in answer to his special rpquest could not venture
to take such a step (Exo. 33 :23$ .T So here very tersely
Hagar described what happened in her case. When ,Yahweh
appeared, she indeed conversed with Him; but only as He
departed did she ‘look after Him.’, So at least she appears
to have understood that no sinful .mortal can see God’s
countenance directly and live (see. .Ex0 3:20). So she
did not even attempt so rash a thing. ut to her God
now is a God ‘who sees me,’ i.e., ‘cares for, me.’ ” Hagar’s
experiences became known, and as a >result of what she
said, the well came to bear the name,-descriptive of her
experience. God is called “the Living One.” “Quite
properly so, because the fact that ,He has regard for the
needs of those who call upon Him, stamps Him as truly
a Living God and not a dead conception.” The Location
of the well: between Kadesh and Bered (v. 14). “Bered”
has never been located. “Kadesh” is the site commonly
designated Kadesh Barnea (cf. Josh. 1 J : 3 , Num. 1 3 : 3 -2 6,
Deut. 9:23, etc.), forty miles due south and a little to the
west of Beersheba. Skinner (ICCG, 228) : “In Arab tradition
the well of Hagar is plausibly enough identified with
‘Ain-Muweilih, a caravan station about 12 miles to the
W. of Kadesh. The well must have been a chief sanctuary
of the Ishmaelites; hence the later Jews, to whom Ishmael
was a name for all Arabs, identified it with the sacred
well Zemzem at Mecca,” Leupold (EG, J03): “So it
comes to pass that two vast nations, the Jews and the Ishmaelites,
are descended from Abraham. No further
spiritual advantage is attached to the advantage of numbers”
(cf. v. 10).
The Birth of Ishmael (vv. 15-1 6). Certainly there
can be no doubt that Hagar did as the Angel of Yahweh
told ,her. to do, and having returned to Abram’s household
ai,Hebrony she bore him a son in his 86th year. He gave
222

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
the child the name Ishmael. It appears that he may have
regarded Ishmael as the promised seed, until, thirteen years
later, the counsel of God was more clearly unfolded to him
(cf. ICD, COTP, 222).
6. The Historical Fulf illiizeizt of the Prophecy.
The fulfillment in history of the oracle (v. 12) concerning
the future of Ishmael’s seed is precise in every
detail, and unqualifiedly stamps the prediction a prophetic
revelation from God. The details of this fulfillment are
presented so authentically by Dr. Henry Cooke (Self-
Interpreting Bible, Vol. I, The Pentateuch, pp. 23 8-239)
that we feel justified in reproducing it here verbatim, as
follows :
“Ver. 10-12. Here it is foretold that Ishmael and his
seed should be wild free men, like wild asses: mischievous
to all around them, and extremely numerous. For almost
four thousand years the fulfillment has been amazingly
remarkable. Ishmael had twelve sons, who gave rise to as
many tribes or nations, called by their names, and who
dwelt southward in Arabia, before the face or in the
I preseme of their near relations, the Ammonites, Moabites,
descendants of Keturah, Edomites, and Jews (17:20; 21:13,
18; 2$:11-18), All along they have been a nuisance and
plague to the nations around them; infamous for theft,
robbery, revenge, pillage, and murder. It has therefore
been the continued and common interest of mankind to
extirpate them from the earth. But though almost every
noted conqueror who has appeared in the world, whether
Hebrew, Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, Grecian,
Roman, Tartar, or Turkish, has pushed his conquest to
their borders, or even beyond them into Egypt or Arabia
Felix, not one has ever been able to subdue these Ishmael-
ites, or deprive them of their freedom. The mighty Shi-
shak, King of Egypt, was obliged to draw a line along their
frontiers for the protection of his kingdom from their
223

16:l-16 GENESIS’<
ravaging ifiroads. The Assyrian under Shalmaneser and
Sennacherib, and the Chaldeans ufider Nebuchadnezzar,
greatly harassed them, and almost extirpated some of their
tribes (Isa. 2:ll-17, Num. 24:22; rJer. 2.5:

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:1-16
Africa, and even some countries of Europe (Rev. 9 : 1-1 1 ) .
Since the fall of their empire, the Turks have made re-
peated attempts to subdue them; but instead of succeeding,
they have been obliged, for near three hundred years past,
to pay them a yearly tribute of forty thousand crowns,
for procuring a safe passage for their pilgrims to Mecca,
the holy city, where Mahomet was born. If, to fulfill
his promise, God has done so much for protecting the
temporal liberty of miscreants, what will he not do for
the salvation of his people!
‘‘Ver. 12-The ‘wild ass’ (pere, the Hebrew word
here translated ‘wild’) was the emblem of wild, rude, un-
controllable freedom-total disregard of the law and social
restraint (Job 24:5, 11:12). Such has ever been, and still
is, the character of the Arab. He roams free through his
native desert. No power has been able to control his move-
ments, or to induce or compel him to accept the settled
habits of civilized life. His hand has been, and is, against
every man who, without his protection, enters his country;
and the hand of every surrounding ruler has been and is
against him. Yet he dwells to this day, as he has done for
nearly forty centuries, in the presence of all his brethren.
He meets them on the east, west, north, and south; and
none can extirpate or subdue him. . . , Against every mm
and every nzaiz’s haizd against him. The descendants of
Ishmael were divided into tribes, after the manner of the
Jews, differing to a certain extent in dispositions, habits,
character, and government. Many of them made great‘ ad-
vances in civilization and learning; and exhibited the
ordinary aspect of powerful, settled, and regular com-
munities. Still there has been a vast number, of whom the
Bedouins are most generally known, who have, in all ages,
practically and literally realized this prediction, and lived,
as they still do, in a state of uninterrupted hostility with all
men, seeking no home but the desert, submitting to no law

16:l-16 GENESIS
but their will, and acknowledging nlr right but their sword;
‘their hand against every man, and every man’s hand against
them.’--‘And he shall dwell in the Presence of dl his
brethren.’ To ascertain the meaning of this sentence, we
must recollect that one peculiarity in the prophecies concerning
the Jews-another branch of the Abrahamic tree
-was, Deut. 28:64, ‘And the Lord shall scatter thee among
all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the
other.’ Now this was foretold of the child of the promise,
the descendants of Isaac; but of Ishmael, the son of the
bondwoman, it is said, He shall dwell in the presence of
all his brethren, that is, while Israel shall be scattered, dispersed,
and outcast, Isa. 11:l2, fro he land promised to
Abram, Ishmael shall abide in the land promised to Hagar.
The event has verified the prediction, and proved that it
proceeded from him who ‘determined the bounds of their
habitation.’ Israel is scattered in judgment as chaff of
the thrashing-flour ; Ishmael abides immovable as Sinai.”
(Cf. Luke 21:24, Acts 17:26). (Explanatory: the name
Arabia Felix, as used above, has reference to Yemen and
surrounding area; Arabia Petraea was the name by which
the northern part of the Arabian world was known, that
which bordered on the Negeb and the adjacent Sinaitic
peninsula. The latter derived its name from the capital
city, Petra, of the Aramaic-speaking Nabataean Arabs.
Petra was some fifty miles south of the Dead Sea. The
Nabataeans derived from Nebaioth, son of Ishmael and
brother-in-law of Edom (Esau): cf. Gen. 25:13, 28:9,
etc. It should be noted here that the Apostle Paul (Gal.
4:25) identifies “Agar” as the Arabian name of Sinai.
“It is not clear where Paul thought Sinai lay; but Strabo
speaks of drawing a line from Petra to Babylon which would
bisect the regions of the Nabateans, Chauloteans (Havilah) ,
and Agreans. The last-named people, who appear as Hagrites
in 1 Chronicles 1~:19, may well have furnished the
226

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN 16:l-16
name for Hagar. Indeed, El Hejar, an important Arabian
road junction, may preserve the name of the Hagrites.
Their earlier habitat may have been more westerly. That;
Hagar is ‘Egyptian’ suggests residence in the north Sinaitic
area” (Kraeling, BA, 69). It would be well for the stu-
dent to familiarize himself with the archaeological dis-
coveries at Petra: it is one of the most important historical
centers of the ancient Near East.
We cannot close this phase of our study without re-
marking that the age-long conflict between the sons of
Isaac and the sons of Ishmael has reached fever heat in our
own time, following the establishment of the Jewish state
of Israeli, and threatens to plunge the world into another
global war. One of the anomalies of the present situation
is the collusion of the Arab world under Nasser the Egyp-
tian dictator, a Mohammedan, with the atheistic totalitarian
state of the Russian Leninists, particularly in view of the
fact that Islamism is the most rigidly monotheistic “re-
ligion” in the world. Even in our day, moreover, the Arab
political regimes are despotisms in the true sense of the
term: they have none of the characteristics of a democracy.
It is interesting too that the Turks, although Mohammedans
also, are of Mongolian extraction and hence do not aline
themselves with the Arab world. These various facts call
for an examination of the term “anti-Semitic,” which is
bandied about so loosely, as meaning only “anti- Jew.”
But the Arabs are also Semitic, as are the Egyptians, the
Ethiopians, and other peoples of the same part of the
world. The languages usually classified as Semitic are the
Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic, and Arabic. Thus
it will be seen that “anti-Semitism” is a term which cannot
be used rightly to designate only those who are opposed
to Jews. It is time for these “weighted” terms, phrases,
and cliches, to be stripped of their overtones and used in
their true signification,
227

I
FOR MEDITATION AN RMONIZING
Isa. 41:s; 2 Chron. 20:7; cf: Jas. 2:23:
Many eminent philosophers, eyayists, poets, etc., have
written eloquently on the subject of friendship. . Aristotle,
for example, in Books Eight and Nine of his Nicovnacbeun
Ethics, tells us that “there are three- kinds of friendship,
corresponding in number to the objects worthy of affection.”
These objects (objectives) are usehlness, pleasure,
and virtue. Virtue, in Aristotle’s ‘thought, means an excellence.
He writes: “The perfect form of friendship
is that between good men who are alike in excellence or
virtue. For these friends wish alike for one another’s good
because they are good men, and they are good per se, that
is, their friendship is something intrinsic, not incidental.
“Those who wish for their friends’ good for their friends’
sake are friends in the truest sense, since their attitude is
determined by what their friends are and not by incidental
considerations.” To sum up: True friendship is that kind
of affection from which all selfish ends are eliminated.
This Aristotelian concept is indicated in Greek by the word
philia (brotherly love), as distinct from cyos (passion,
desire, lust) and from agape (reverential love). Cicero, in
his famous essay OTL Fi4eizdsbilsip (De Amicitia) writes in
similar fashion: “It is love (u~oY), from which the word
‘friendship’ (amicitia) is derived, that leads to the establishing
of goodwill. . . , in friendship there is nothing false,
nothing pretended; whatever there is is genuine and comes
of its own accord. Wherefore it seems to me that friendship
springs rather from nature than from need, and from
an inclination of the soul joined with a feeling of love
rather than from calculation of how much profit the
friendship is likely to afford.” One is reminded here of
Augustine’s doctrine of pure love f o ~ God: “Whosoever
228
*,

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
seeketh of God any thing besides God, doth not love God
purely, If a wife loveth her husband because he is rich,
she is not pure, for she loveth not her husband, but the
gold of her husband.” “Who seeks from God any other
reward but God, and for it would serve God, esteems what
he wishes to receive, inbre than Him from whom he would
receive it” (See Everyman’s Library, The Confessiom, p.
52, n.). That is to say, the noblest motivation to the Spiritual
Life is neither the fear of punishment nor the hope
of reward, but love for God simply because He is God
(cf. John 3:16, 1 John 4:7-21).
The title Frieiid of God undoubtedly comes from the
passages cited above from Isaiah and Second Chronicles.
It is given to Abraham also by Clement of Rome (Ad Cor.
chs. 10, 17). It was Abraham’s special privilege to be
known by this title among the Jews, and to our own day
he is known also among the Arabs as El Khalil, equivalent
to “the Friend.” We recall here what God had to say in
praise of His “servant Job” (Job 1-8), and when His praise
was challenged by the Adversary (1 Pet. 5 : 8), God accepted
the challenge and flroz~d Job’s uprightness by his stedfastness
under the pressure of the most terrible calamities. We
may rest assured that when God speaks approvingly of one
of His great servants, He speaks the truth as always. So
it was in Abraham’s case: when God called Abraham His
Friend, we may sure that the patriarch was His Friend
with all that this term means to God Himself.
A man may have all the silver and gold in the world,
but if he has not friends, he is poor. He may operate
factories and mills, live in mansions of brick or stone; he
may possess acres of real estate, vast rolling plains and
valleys; he may have oil wells scattered about, everywhere;
indeed he may be a billionaire, but if he has not friends,
he is nothing. The most priceless possession in this world
is a true friend. It is a wonderful thing to have in one’s
heart true friendship for others. It is a sanctifying senti-
229

GENESIS ‘’-’
ment that ennobles the soul and enhahc one’s conviction
of the dignity and worth of the person. But if to be a
friend of man is wonderful, how much more wonderful it
is to be a friend of God! Remember the definition of a
friend by a woman in mourning: “A friend is one who
comes in when the world goes out: I believe that thi
business of Heaven must have stopped for just a moment
when God pronounced above the bier of Abraham the
words, “My Friend.” What an epitaph!
What was it in Abraham’s odreer that made the
patriarch worthy of being called the Friend of God?
1. Abraham believed God. The faith of Abraham was
of such quality that the patriarch has gone down in history
as the father of the faithful (Rom. 4:11, 16; Gal. 3:9,
3:23-29). Abram was seventy-five years old when the
Call came to him. The Call was specific and the Divine
promises were definite. He was to establish a family and
father a great nation; his name was to be great; and
through him all the peoples of earth were to be blessed.
That was what God said. Faith is taking God at His
word, and, nothing doubting, Abram gathered his substance
together and all the family, including Lot, his brother’s
son, and left Ur of the Chaldees. At Haran they left the
rest of their immediate kin behind and they themselves
pushed on to an unknown destination. They went by
faith, not knowing whither they went or where the end
of their journey would be. Theirs was in every sense of
the word the Pilgrimage of faith. (Rom. 10:8-17, Heb.
11:8-12). Faith is the substance of things hoped for
(that which stands under hope) and a conviction with
respect to things not seen. So it was in Abram’s case:
“he went out, not knowing whither he went (Heb. 11:1,
8; cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-18). Note Gen. 12:l-4. God said to
Abram, etc., etc., and “Abram went, as Jehovah had
spoken unto*him.” Where else can we find so great a
communication so simply expressed? And where an
230

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
answer expressing so much in so few words that mean so
much to the human race? That Call to Abraiiz aid
Abraids respoiise changed the eiitire cowrse of huinan.
history,
2. Abram heard the Call, and Abram obeyed.
(1)
His faith led to works of faith. Me hear a great deal
about “faith only” as equivalent to conversion. There is
no such thing as “faith only”: the Bible does not teach
salvation by “faith only” any more than it teaches salvation
by “baptism only” (1 Pet. 3:21). What would
“faith only” be? What could it be but a pseudo-intellectual
acquiescence that lacks any kind of real commitment?
But Christian faith includes not only belief and confession
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt.
16:16, 10:32-33; Rom. 10:9-lo), but also the commitment
of the whole man-in spirit and soul and body (1
Thess, 5:23; cf. Rom. 12:1-2)-to the authority and example
of Christ (Col. 3:17). (2) Hence, the testimony
of James that “as the body apart from the spirit is dead,
even so faith apart from works is dead” (Jas. 2:14-26).
James’ argument is twofold: (a) Faith that does not manifest
itself in works (acts) of faith is dead, because it is
only profession without practice; (b) even the devils
believe and tremble: how worthless, then, must be faith
alone! But does not this contradict what the Apostle Paul
says in Rom. 3:20, “By works of law shall no flesh be
justified” (accounted righteous) in God’s sight. At first
glance this statement from James appears to be diametrically
opposed to Paul’s teaching: for (1) Paul says, Rom.
3:28, “We reckon that a man is justified by faith apart
from works of law,” whereas James asserts that “faith
without works is dead,” and that man is “justified by
works and not only by faith” (Jas. 2:26, 24). (2) Paul
speaks of Abraham as justified by faith (Rom. 4, Gal. 3:6
ff.), James says that he was justified by worlts (v. 21).
(3) Paul, or the writer of Hebrews, appeals to the case
23 1

’ GENESIS ;
of Rahab as an example of faith (Neb,,., 11 : 3 1 ) , but James
cites hey as an example of justificatiqq works (v. 2,~).
Gibsqn (PC, James, in loco) : “The,%opposition, however,
is only apparent: for (1) The two ppostles use the wprd
erga in different senses. In St. Pau1,jt always has a deprecatory
sense, unless qualified by h e -,adjectiye I hala ~ or
agatha. The works which he denies p have ,any share in
justification are ‘legal works,’ not those.
denominates the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. (
are the works of which St. James.qpea
pistis is also used in different senses.,. .In
di’ agapes energozmeize (Gal. 5 : 6) [Le., faith working
through reverential love] ; in St. James sit is simply an
orthodox creed, ‘even the devils pistei,~wsi’ (v. 19) ; it may,
therefore, be barren of works of charity. (3) The Apostles
are writing against different errors and tendencies: St.
Paul against those who would impose the Jewish law and
the rite of circumcision upon Gentile believers; St. James
against ‘the self -complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic
Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of a pure
monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham,
needed to be reminded not to neglect the still weightier
matters of self-denying love.’ . . . (4) The Apostles regarded
the new dispensation from different standpoints.
With St. Paul it is the negation of the law: ‘Ye are not
under Law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6:14). With St.
James it is the perfection of Law.” The term “works” has
come to indicate different categories of human acts. (1)
By works of the Law the Apostle Paul surely has reference
to human acts included in the keeping of the Mosaic Law,
both the Decalogue and the ritualistic aspect of it. Obviously,
no human being does or even can keep the Ten
Commandments perfectly: the sad fact is that all “have
sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3 :23).
Ong..must obey the requirments of the Decalogue to be
cop’sidexed a “moral” man: unfortunately in the view of
232

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
the commonality m’orality is ususally identified with re-
spectability. Christianity demands infinitely more than
obedience to the Law of Moses: it requires total commit-
ment to “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”
(Rom. 8:2), the royal law, the perfect law of liberty
(Jas. 2:8, Matt. 22:34-40, Jas. 1:25, 2 Cor. 3:17), of which
Love is essentially the fulfillment (Rom. 13: lo). Law is
designed to distinguish right froin wroiig, and to protect
the weak frmn the strottg, but Law is powerless to save a
single bunzan soul. Salvatioii is by grace, through faith
(Eph. 2:8) : Grace overtures aiid states the coizditioizs,
and inan, by faith accepts and obeys, aizd so receives the
fulfilliizeizt of the Divine proiizises. (2) Again, in the
gobbledygook of medieval psuedo-Christianity, such prac-
tices as indulgences, penance, counting beads, bowing be-
fore images, keeping feasts and fasts and solemn proces-
sions, sprinkling holy water as a feature of ritualistic
priestly “blessings,” extreme unction, praying souls out of
purgatory, etc., etc., were often categorized as “works” by
the Protestant reformers, beginning, of course, with Luther.
But in our time Protestantism has ceased to protest: it too
has drifed into a crass legalism and spiritless ritual (when
not superseded entirely by the much-vaunted “social
gospel”), a form of religion lacking the spirit thereof
(hence, Packing the Holy Spirit), a state of the inner man
which Jesus throughly despised. The two sins which He
anathematized above all others were formalisiiz and kypoc-
risy. (Cf. Matt., chs. J, 6, 7, 23). (3) The works which
James writes about are of a different kind altogether. They
are works which proceed inevitably from the truly re-
generated heart, from a living and active faith, the faith
that leads to just such works of faith, without which re-
ligion is nothing but an empty shell, a sounding brass or
a clanging cymbal (Cff. Matt. 3:7-9, 25:31-46; Luke
13:3, 3:7-14; Gal. j:22-24; Jas. 1:27, 2:14-26, etc.).
James is simply reiterating here the universal principle laid
233

GENESIS
down by Jesus, and confirmed by human experience, that
a tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 7:16-20). (4) Bap-
tism, the Communion, the tithes and offerings, almsgiving,
worship, praise, meditation, prayer: by no stretch of the
imagination can these acts be designated “works”; first,
last, and always, they are acts of faith. They proceed
only and inevitably from faith, and only from faith that
is far more than mere intellectual assent, that is, from
faith that is as living and active as the Word itself (Heb.
4:12). When God commands, faith raises no questions,
but proceeds to take God at His word and to do what
God commands to be done. Genuine faith will never start
an argument at the baptismal pool. (5) Of course, the
motivating principle of the Spiritual Life from beginning
to end is faith, Repentance is faith deciding, choosing,
will-ing; confession is faith declaring itself; baptism is
faith witnessing to the facts of the Gospel (Rom. 6:17-
18) ; the Communion is faith memorializing; worship is
faith praising, thanking, adoring; the assembly of the
saints is faith fellowshiping, etc. Any act that is Christian
must be an act of faith. From the cradle to the grave
the true Christian lives and acts, to the best of his knowl-
edge and ability, by faith (Rom. 5:1), and by a faith
that is full commitment.
3. This principle of obedient f uith runs throughout
the Spiritual Life, indeed it motivates it and controls it.
God recognized Abraham as His Friend on the ground that
Abraham did what He commanded him to do. This does
not mean that he was perfect, but that his disposition, as
in the case of Noah (Gen. 7:1, 6:22), was to obey God
in all things. Of course, as we all know, Abraham did
“slipyy a little from the plumb line at times (cf. Amos
7:7-8), but admittedly the temptation was great. Abra-
ham, like all of us, even the most devoted Christian, was
a creature with all the weaknesses of his kind. It is diffi-
culs for any of us to attain a state of complete trust either
234

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
in God or in our fellows, and many times we are compelled
to cry out, as did the Apostles of old, “Lord, increase our
faith” (Luke 17:J). But we have the assurance that
“like as a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah yitietb
them that fear him; for he ltnoweth our frame; he re-
membereth that we are dust” (Psa. 103:13), and we have
His promise that His grace is sufficient for our support if
we will but call on Him for spiritual strength that we
may need (2 Cor. 12:9, Rom. 8:26-28, 1 Cor. 10:13, 2
Pet. 2:9, etc.).
Conclusion : God requires-and expects-the same
obedient faith on the part of His saints in all Dispensations,
in ours as well as in those preceding it. Jesus makes this
so clear that no one can misunderstand or claim ignorance
as an alibi. “If ye love me,” said He, “ye will keep my
commandments” (John 14: 1 j) , Again, “Greater love hath
no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends’’ (John 1j:13), But our Lord hath greater love
than this, in that He laid down His life even for His
enemies, for the sin of the whole world (John 1 :29).
Again: “Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I
command you” (John 15:14), The obedieizce of faith is
the ultinzate proof of friefzdship. This-our Lord Himself
declares-is the essence of His teaching in the Sermon on
the Mount (Matt. 7:24-27). Practice, He tells us, rather
than profession, is the ultimate evidence of one’s faith
(Matt. 7:21-23). He is the Author of salvation to one
class only--“unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9).
“Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I
command you.’’ It would be “blind faith,” to be sure,
to do what a ma?$ commands just because be comnartds it.
But it is intelligent faith to do what our Lord commands
just because N e comnzaizds it. It is always intelligent faith
to do what is commanded by Perfect Wisdom, Perfect
Justice and Perfect Love, as incarnate in the Logos, God’s
23 5

1 ’ GENESIS‘, 1
Only Begotten. This is true, simply because Perfect Wisdom
and Justice and Love would command only that which
contributes ,to the good of His saints. Surely, then,
Abraham deserved the title, Friend of God. Gen. 15:6-
“And he [Abraham] believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned
it to him for righteousness.” Abraham’s belief manifested
itself in obedience: when God called, Abraham heard, believed,
and obeyed: this is what faith always does, if it is
truly faith. Hence, when the ultimate proof came on
Moriah (Gen. 22:2), the patriarch did not question, quail,
or fail. He met the test in a sublime manifestation of the
obedience of faith (Gen. 22:9-14). “Trust and obey, for
there’s no other way, To be happy in Jesus, but to trust
and obey.”
Would you be a friend of God? Then believe as
Abraham believed, obey as Abraham obeyed, trust as Abraham
trusted, walk as Abraham walked, give as Abraham
gave (Gen. 14: 18-20) , sacrifice as Abraham sacrificed
(Matt. 12:46-50, 10:37), die in faith as Abraham died
in faith, anticipating that City which hath foundations,
whose builder and maker is God (Heb. 11 : lo). Will you
not come=now and start ’on that same glorious pilgrimage of
faith that leads ’ the ”faithful to that same City, New
Jerusalem (Rev. 2 1 : 2 ) ?
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
1 PART TWENTY -NINE
’I. What importani’lessons are to be obtained from the
story of Sarah,,Hagar and Ishmael?
2. What,‘ probably, was Sarai’s motive in proposing that
biak take Hagar .as , his” t ‘:secondary * wife”?
3. What are-some of the apparently never-ending consequences
of this evenJ? ,.,
4, What was the status of a concubine under Mesopotamian
law?
23 6

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
Why do we say that this event was ill-conceived and
ill-timed?
Do you thinks that the Apostle’s statement in Acts
17:30 has relevance in respect to this event? Explain
your answer.
On what grounds are we justified in criticizing Sarai
and Abram for their hasty action?
How does this story point up the realism of the Bible?
What was Hagar’s sin following the awareness of her
pregnancy? How did Sarai and Abram react to
Hagar’s attitude?
Explain how archeological discoveries have substan-
tiated the details of this story. What do we learn
from the Code of Hammurabi that is revelant to it?
What do we learn from the Nuzi tablets?
What was Sarai’s attitude toward Abram at this
time? What was Abram’s reply?
Why do we say that Sarai used the Divine Name
irreverently (v. r) ?
How is Sarai’s treatment of Hagar variously in-
terpreted (v. 6) ?
Is it conceivable that Abram might have .been pre-
pared to accept Ishmael as the Child of Promise?
Explain your answer.
What does this incident teach us about the quality’of
genuine faith?
Was not the sin of Abram and Sarai .their failure to
await God’s own pleasure as to the fulfillment of His
promise? Explain,
What always happens when men presume to take
matters of Divine ordination into their own hands?
Explain how Leupold deals more leniently ‘with the
principals in this story.
How was childlessness regarded in patriarchal times?
Explain the special far-reaching significance of the
childlessness of Abram and Sarai.
237
1

GENESIS
21. How does the legal background reflected in this story
conform to the actual time element?
22. Explain how the stories of Ishmael and Isaac have to
do with the law of inheritance in the Patriarchal Age.
23. What caused Hagar to flee from Sarai’s presence?
24. What is indicated by the direction af Hagar’s flight?
Explain what was meant by “the way to Shur.”
What and where is the Negeb?
25. Describe the theophany which occurred at “the foun-
tain of water.”
26. Discuss fully the problem of the true identity of the
Angel of Jehovah (Yahwe) ,
27. What interpretation of this title is in greatest accord
with Biblical teaching as a whole?
28. Cite other Scriptures in which this Personage is pic-
tured as taking a prominent role.
29. What reasons have we for not thinking of Him as
a created being?
30. What reasons have we for thinking of Him as a pre-
incarnate manifestation of the Eternal Logos?
31. What was the threefold revelation of the Angel to
Hagar? Explain the Angel’s question, command, and
promise, respectively.
32. State the details of the prophetic statement concern-
ing Ishmael and his seed.
33. What did Hagar learn from this visit of the Angel
of the Lord?
34. What did Hagar name this famous well? Explain
what the name means? What is its probable location?
3 5. Where did Hagar go, following the Angel’s visit?
36. Show how the Angel’s statement regarding the destiny
of Ishmael’s seed is fulfilled throughout history and
even in our own time.
37. What is occurring today between the seed of Ishmael
and Isaac’s seed?
23 8

THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN
38. Explain the full meaning of the term anti-Semitic
How is it being used erroneously today.
39. On what grounds are we justified in accepting Abra-
ham as the Friend of God?
40. What is the norm by which our Lord Jesus dis-
tinguishes His friends from “followers afar off”?
(Matt. 26: 58).
239

PART THIRTY
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
THE OLD COVENANT
(Genesis 17:l-27)
1. Synopsis of Chapter Seventeen
“Again thirteen years rolled away, and still the Promise
was not fulfilled. But when hope might almost have
ceased to hope, God appeared once more to Abram, re-
capitulated the main outline of the Covenant-Promise,
changed his name from Abram (a high father), to Abra-
ham (the father of a multitude), and assured him that at
length the long-expected time was well-nigh come. But
in prospect of the peculiar blessing about to be bestowed
upon him, he himself, and all his seed after him, must
carry about with them a perpetual pledge of their covenant
relation to Jehovah. The rite of Circumcision must now
be adopted by him, and instead of being the badge of any
favored class amongst the nation destined to spring from
his loins, was, on pain of excommunication, to be open to
the lowliest member of the Hebrew commonwealth, even
to the bond-servant and the stranger. At the same time
it was intimated to the patriarch that his wife Sarai, whose
name also was now changed to SARAH (princess), and no
other, was to be the mother of the promised child, that he
would be born during the next year, and be called Isaac
(Laughter) ; while Ishmael also, for whom Abraham had
prayed, would not be forgotten, but be a partaker in the
Divine blessing, and become the father of twelve princes,
the ancestors of a great nation. Thereupon Abraham com-
plied with the Divine command, and was circumcised, to-
gether with Ishmael, now thirteen years of age, and all the
male members of his household” (COTH, 38-39).
2. The Covenant-Promise ( 17 : 1 - 8 )
I And when Abram was ninety years old and nine,
Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, 1 am God
240

THE OLD COVENANT 17;1-27
Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 An>d
I will make iny covenant bettueeii ine and thee, and will
inultiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abra?n fell ov his face:
and God talked with him, sayiizg, 4 As for me, behold,
my couenaizt is with thee, and thoid shalt be the father of a
multitude of nations. j Neither shall thy m-.nze alzy more
be called Abraw, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the
father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. 6 And
1 will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make na-
tions of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I
will establish nzy covenant between me and thee and thy
seed after thee throughout their generations for ais ever-
lasting coveiauiit, to be a God amto thee and to thy seed
after thee. 8 And I will give wit0 thee, and to thy seed
after thee, the land of thy sojourniizgs, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession; aiid I will be their
God.
Leupold (EG, 511) : “The basic fact to be observed
for a proper approach to this chapter is that the covenant
referred to is not a new one. For 15:18 reports the estab-
lishment of the covenant, whose essential provisions are
the same as those here outlined. Consequently this chapter
marks an advance in this direction, that the things pre-
viously guaranteed are now foretold as finally coming to
pass : the one covenant promises certain blessings, the other
the realization of these blessings when their appointed time
has come. Criticism confuses issues by claiming that our
chapter gives P’s account of the covenant which was
covered by J’s account in the somewhat different fashion
in chapter 15. Consequently it need not be wondered at,
that the critical approach continually magnifies incidental
differences and tries to set these two chapters at variance
with one another. Furthermore, the distinct importance I
of our chapter is readily discerned. A man who has long
been obligated to wait in unwavering faith certainly re-
241

17:l-27 GENESIS
quires clear promises of God upon which to build such
faith. For faith must have a foundation. Here these
promises, covering the essentials of numerous posterity and
possession of the land, and involving by implication the
Messianic features found in v. 12, now specify Sarai as the
mother who is to bear the son, and also establish a covenant
sign. Immediately before the birth of the son of promise
these distinct features are, of course, most in place. Aside
from this, to have all these promises featured as parts of
the covenant seals everything for the faith of Abram which
is now under necessity of hoping and believing against all
hope.”
“God’s making a covenant here, and in many other
places, denotes the enlargement, renewal, establishment, or
confirmation of it. It cannot be imagined that, in various
instances in which this phrase is used, He had not respect
to His former declarations of the same kind as still in
force.” (SIBG, 239). (Psa. 105:8-10, Gen. lj:18, Exo.
34:lO-27, 1 Ki. 8:9, Jer. 31:33, Hos. 2:18, Gen. 6:18,
Exo. 6:4, Lev. 27:9, Deut. 8:11-20, Ezek. 16:60, 62, etc.)
It should be noted that this is God’s covenant with Abra-
ham in the wider seme, that is, it included Abraham’s pos-
terity (“thee and thy seed after thee,” v. 7). V. 4--“the
father of a multitude of nations.” This was fulfilled to
the letter. Abraham was the progenitor of the Ishmaelites,
the Israelites, the Midianites, the Edomites, and their kings
(v. 20; Num., ch. 31, Gen., ch. 36, Matt., ch. 1) but
chiefly Christ and His spiritual subjects (Gal. 3 :23-29;
Psa. 45:16; Rev. 17:14, 1:6, 11:15, 15:3; 1 Pet. 2:9, etc.).
Isaac and his Israelite descendants were properly the natwal
seed with whom this covenant was established, v, 21. By
it, God in Chaist, became to the Israelites in general, the
n and assumed them for His peculiar
, Deut. 1412, Eph. 1:11), bestowed on
them the land of Canaan as His land, in the enjoyment of
which they tasted His goodness, and had access to contem-
242

THE OLD COVENANT 17: 1-27
plate the glories of the new covenant state, and of the
heavenly blessedness of spiritual Israel in Christ. (Note
the parallelism between Exo. 19:5-6 and 1 Pet. 2:9-19).
(Cf. Gen. 12:3, 3:6-9, Rom. 9:6-9, John 8:56, Heb. 11:8-
16).
V. l-Abram was ninety-nive years old when all the
details of the covenant were made known to him. The
long interval between this age and that given in 16:16
should be noted carefully. It marks a long delay in the
fulfillment of the Promise, a tarrying on God’s part; this,
however, corresponds to the undue impatience and haste
of Abram (cf. 2 Pet. 3:9).
V. 1-E1 Skaddai, “meaning God Almighty, from the
root shadad (be violent, irresistibly strong). Some accept
another interpretation, ‘God of the mountain,’ which is
not to be taken as worship of nature (animism) but that
God appeared to Abram on the mountain. El Shaddai
appears to Abram when he is ninety-nine years of age,
and when the birth of an heir seems literally impossible.
The mighty God steps in and does the impossible” (HSB,
28). It should be noted that it is Yahweh, according to
the text, who says, “I am El Shaddai.” (This Name is
found six times in Genesis and thirty-one times in Job).
Elohim, according to Delitzsch, is the God who causes
nature to be and to endure; El Shaddai is the God who
constrains nature and subdues it, “so that it bows and
yields itself to the service of grace.” “Walk before me,
aizd be thou perfect,” said Yahweh to Abraham: “the one
command demands a God-conscious life of the best type;
the other, faithful observance of all duties. The one is
sound mysticism; the other, conscientious conduct. The
one is the soul of true religion; the other, the practice of
it” (EG, 514). That this was another theopbany is clear
from v. 22; hence, “Abra?n fell 011 his face, aizd God talked
with him,” etc. Abram fell on his face “in token of his
fear and reverence, as being afraid and ashamed to look
243

17:l-27 . GENESIS 7,
upon God” (cf. v. 17; Exo. 3:6, Lev. 9:24, Num. 22:31,
Josh. 5:14, Judg. 13:20; Ezek. 1:28, 3:23, 9:8, 43:3; Dan.
8:17; Matt. 17:6, Rev. 1:17; cf. also Psa. 89:7, Deut. 4:24,
Exo. 24:17; Heb. 10:31, 12:29; Gen. 28:16-17; Psa. 96:4,
9; Psa. 91:9; Rev. 15:4).
VV. 5, 15. New nmes.
“God’s giving names to per-
sons imports His making them to correspond with them in
their condition or usefulness” (Gen. 32:28; 2 Sam. 12:25;
Isa. 62:2, 4:5; Rev. 2:17; Jer. 20:3, 23:6, 33:16; Matt.
1 :21), Lange (CDHCG, 422) : “The Hebrews connected
the giving of names with circumcision (ch. 2 1 : 3 ff.; Luke
l:I9, 2:21). The connection of the giving of names, and
circumcision, effects a mutual explanation. The name
announces a definite human character, the new name a
new character (the new name, Rev. 2 : 17, the perfect stamp
of individual character) , circumcision, a new or renewed,
and more noble nature.” Jamieson (CECG, 151) : “In
eastern countries the name given in infancy is sometimes
in the course of life altered: a change of name is an adver-
tisement of some new circumstance in the history, rank,
or religion of the individual who bears it. The change is
made variously-by the old name being entirely dropped for
the new, or by conjoining the new with the old, or some-
times only a few letters are inserted, so that the altered
form may express the difference in the owner’s state or
prospects. It is surprising how soon a new name is known,
and its import spread through the country. In dealing
with Abraham and Sarai, God was pleased to adapt his
procedure to the ideas and customs of the country and age.
There was no way, according to prevailing notions, in
which the Divine promise would be so well remembered,
and the splendid prospects of the patriarch became more
widely known than by giving him and his wife new names,
significant of their high destiny. Instead of Abram-Ab
or Abbu, father, and ram, high, ‘a high father,’ he was to be
called-Ab-ra-hamon, father of a great multitude; and
244

THE OLD COVENANT 17: 1-27
this has been verified, whether he has been considered as
the ancestor of the Jews, Arabs, etc., or as the Father of
the Faithful,” (Cf, Neh. 9:7-8). “For the ancients a name
did not merely indicate, rather it made a thing what it
was, and a change of name meant a change of destiny, cf.
v. 15 and 3f:lO. Abrain and Abraham, it seems, are in
fact just two dialetical forms of the same name whose
meaning is ‘he is great by reason of his father, he is of
noble descent.’ In this place, however, Abraham is in-
terpreted on the strength of its similarity with ab hamo.lz,
‘father of a multitude’ ” (JB, 3 3). Note also in this con-
nection, Sarai’s change of name to Sarah (v. If). This
new name “bears no different meaning from her former
name but marks an added dignity nevertheless because of
the circumstances involved” (EG, f26). As in the case
of Abraham, “such a change is viewed as the external sign
of an important turn in the life or function of the bearer.
. . . The underlying concept was probably much the same
as in a king’s assumption of a special throne name. The
event marked a new era” (ABG, 127). “Sarah and Sarai
are two forms of the same name, which means ‘princess’;
Sarah is to be the mother of kings, v. 16” (JB, 3 3). The
meaning that some attach to the name in saying that it
means “the contender,” is hardly appropriate. “ ‘Sarah’
means ‘princess’ or ‘the princely one.’ Without a special
divine blessing it would, of course, have been a physical im-
possibility for Sarah to bring forth this son [Isaac].
Consequently this potent blessing of God is twice referred
to: once in connection with this son, then in relation to
‘the kings of peoples’ that shall in the course of time spring
from this son. But she who thus becomes the mother of
kings certainly merits the name ‘Princess”’ (EG, f26).
Note carefully: “thy seed after thee, throughout their
generatioizs, for an euerlastiizg CouenaiZt” (v. 7) , “all the
land of Cafiaa?i., for an everlasting possessioiz” (vv. 7, 8, 9,
12, 13, 19). Everlasting-how long? (1) Note how
245

17: 1-27 GENESIS
modern analytical (destructive) criticism deals with this
phase of the Promise: “With this cf. Ps. 105:44-45, where
the possession of the land is regarded as necessary if Israel
is to keep God’s statutes and observe his laws. The chosen
people was no abstract idea. Israel was a concrete reality,
a people, however unique, among the peoples of the earth.
To be itself and to achieve its destiny it needed its own
land, in which would be the center of its religion-the
temple-and within which it could freely order its life in
accordance with the divine law. . . , This insistence on the
part of P was in part an expression of the natural love of
a people for its home. It was in part a consequence of the
fact that Israel had as yet no adequate belief in life after
death, so that God’s promise had to be realized, if at all,
here and now on this earth. Nevertheless, in insisting upon
the importance of the natural community he was on sure
ground for, without this insistence, belief in the supernatural
becomes little more than a world-escaping piety”
(IBG, 611-612)‘ Note well tbut under this view the
spiritual (mtitypical) aspect of this pbuse of the Promise,
which indeed perrneutes the Bible throughout, in the Old
Testament us‘ unticipution, in the New us fulfillment, is
utterly ignored. The, critics seem to be completely blind
with respect to the unity of the Bible us a whole. (2)
“This covenant, as it respected the Hebrew nation, together
the possession of Canaan, and the various ceremonial
ordinances by which they were marked the peculiar people
of God, and in the observance of which they were to enjoy
their rest and prosperity in Canaan, is represented as everlasting
or for ever; but in these passages no more than a
long time is meant (Gen. 48:4; Exo. 12:14, 17; 21:6,
31:17, 32:13, 40:lF; Lev. :34; 25:23, 40, 46; Nurn.
10:8, lF:lF,’l8:9, 2F:13; t. 4:40, lF:17, 18:s; Josh.
14:9, etc.).
But as this covenant respected Christ,
and believers in him, it, and all the spiritual blessings con-
tainqd in it, are everlasting in the strictest sense (Heb.
246

THE OLD COVENANT 17: 1-27
13:20; 9:12, I?; 1 Pet. 1:4, 2 Pet. 1:ll). And it is per-
haps chiefly because the covenant of peculiarity with
Israel, and the ordinances and blessings thereof, prefigured
these eternal relations and privileges that they are repre-
sented as ever1ustjn.g’’ (SIBG, 240). (3) Jamieson (CECG,
152) : “It is perfectly clear that this promise was meant
to refer to the natural descendants of Abram, who, by the
election of grace, were to be separated from the rest of
the nations, and to the temporal blessings which it guaran-
teed to them (Rom. 11:16, 15:s). They were in their
collective capacity to form the visible external Church;
and in the sense of their being ‘a chosen generation, a
peculiar people,’ though many of them were unbelievers,
they were to be called the people of God, as is manifest
from the words ‘in their generations.’ In this sense partly
the covenant is called ‘an everlasting covenant’; for it is
continued in force down to the promulgation of the
Gospel, when the national distinction ceased, by the admis-
sion of all mankind to the spiritual blessings contained in
the Abrahamic covenant (Eph. 2: 14). But further, in a
spiritual point of view, it is called ‘an everlasting covenant.’
The promise is a promise made to the Church of all ages;
for He who is not the God of the dead, but of the living,
made it to ‘Abraham and his seed’ (Cf. Gal. 3 : 17). The
sign of circumcision was annexed to it under the Jewish
dispensation (cf. Acts 2:38, 39; Gal. 3:6, 7, 9, 14, 22, 26,
29; Heb. 8: lo), and that of baptism under the Christian.”
(This writer goes on to justify the connection of fleshly
circumcision with baptism as “spiritual circumcision,” a
notion which we shall give attention later. Suffice it to
say that in the foregoing exegesis, although much of it is
Scriptural, there are three obvious errors: (1) To say that
the phrases under consideration here were meant to refer
chiefly to the natural descendants of Abraham is contra-
dicted in the latter part of the quotation by the applica-
247

17: 1-27 GENESIS
tion of these phrases to the spiritual seed of Abraham: the
Scriptures teach that the spiritual seed of Abraham were
included, by Divine ordination, in the original promises to
Abraham and his seed, Le., the term seed included from the
beginning both the fleshly and the spiritual, the typical
and the antitypical, the latter being of far greater import
than the former (John 8:56, Gal. 3:8, 29). (2) Ta speak
of the Old Covenant people as a Church is utterly erro-
iieous. The Church is the Divine institution which was
established on Pentecost (Acts 2) and is used always in
Scripture to designate God’s people under the New Cove-
nant. (3) There is no Scriptatral justification whatever
for identifying baptism with spiritual circumcisiort. The
indwelling Holy Spirit, not baptism, is the sign and seal
of the New Covenant (Acts 2:38, Rom. 5:s; 1 Cor. 3:16,
6:19; 2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13, 4:30). (Spiritual circum-
cision is Scripturally explained infra.)
The simple fact of the matter is that these terms, ~ O T
euer and euerlastirtg, as used with respect to the land (Ca-
naan) and the covenant, means as long as the Old Cove-
ndnt continued to be in force: hence the import of the
phrase, “throughout their generations.” The Abrahamic
Covenant, of course, was enlarged into a national covenant
at Sinai, under the mediatorship of Moses (Exo. 19:Y-6,
24:18, 34:28; Deut. 5:2, 9:9; cf. 1 Pet. 2:9, John 7:19;
Gal. 3:15-22, etc.). That this Old Covenant would be
abrogated and. superseded by the New is expressly an-
nounced in the Old .Testament itself (Jer. 31 :31-34, cf.
Heb. 8:6-13; Hos. 2’:ll; Amos 5:21, 8:10, etc.). The
New Coyenant, it should be understood, is not a continua-
tion or,enlargement of the Old: it is the New Covenant,
mediated by, Messiah> Himself ,, and established upon better
promises (John, 1:17; Heb. 8:6, 9:15, 12:24), in which
Jews and Gentiles come together by induction into Christ
(Gal. 3:27-29,- Eph. 32111-18) to form the me new man.
248

I
1
THE OLD COVENANT 17:l-27
By His death on the Cross, our Lord at one and the same
time abrogated the Old Covenant and ratified the New
(Col. 2:13-1J7 Heb. 9:11-22).
The Coveizaiit-Proiizises: these were first stated in
Gen. 12:l-3, then variously amplified as repeated in Gen.
13:14-17, 15:l-2, 17:l-27, 22:15-19, etc. From careful
analysis of these various passages we find that we have
given here what may be regarded as four distiiict ele-
inentury promises. These are (1) that Abraham should
have a numerous offspring (Gen. 13:16, 15:3-5, 17:2-4,
22: 17) ; (2) that God would be a God to him and to his
seed after him (Gen. 17:l-8); (3) that He would give to
Abraham and to his seed, an everlasting possession (Gen.
12:7, 13:15, 15:18-21, 17:8); that He would bless all the
peoples of the earth through him and his seed (Gen. 12:3,
22: 18). “But nevertheless they may all in harmony with
Scripture usage be regarded as but elementary parts of
one and the same promise, made to Abraham and his seed
(Acts 2:39; 13:23, 32; 26:6; Rom. 4:14, 16; Gal. 3:18,
22, 29, etc.) ; each part having a double reference: that is,
looking to both the typical and the antitypical side of the
Divine economy. The first element, for instance, was a
pledge to Abraham that he would have a numerous family,
first, according to the flesh, and secondly, according to the
Spirit; the second, that God would be a God to both of
these families, though in a far higher sense to the latter
than to the former; the third, that each of these families
would become heirs to an inheritance; and the fourth, that
through each of them the world would be blessed’’ (Milli-
gan, SR, 75-76). Through the fleshly seed of Abraham,
the worship of the living and true God (monotheism) and
the basic principles of the moral law (the Decalogue) were
preserved and handed down to posterity; through the
spiritual seed of Abraham, eternal good news of redemp-
tion through Christ Jesus is proclaimed to all nations for
the obedience of faith (Exo. 3:14, Deut, 5:26, Acts 14:15,
2 49

17: 1-27 GENESIS
1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14, 10:31; Rev, 7:2; John 1:17, Exo.
2O:l-17; Matt. j:17-18, 22:34-40; Rev. 14:6-8; Matt.
24;14, 28:18-20; Eph. 3:8-12, € Tim. 3:lY; Ram. 1:16,
10:6-17; 1 Cor. 1:21-25, etc.)
3. The Covenant-Sign (17:9-14)
9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou
shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed gfter thee
throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant,
which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed
after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of yow fore-
skdn; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me
and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circum-
cised among you, every male throughout your generiztiom,
he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any
foreigner that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in
thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must
needs be circzbmcised: and my covenant shall be in your
flesh for an everlmting covenant. 14 and the uncircunz-
cised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his fme-
skin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he bath
broken my covenant.
Fleshly Circumcision: “The Greeks had two words for
covenant, viz., suntheke and diathske. The former was
used to denote a solemn agreement made between equals;
and the latter, to denote any arrangement made by a supe-
rior for the acceptance and observance of an inferior. And
hence it is, that all of God’s covenants are expressed in
Greek by the word diatheke. The word suntheke is not
found in the New Testament; but diatheke occurs in it 33
times;,and b’reeth is used 267 times in the Old Testament”
. 77, n.). The former word indicates a
latter, the distinction between a covenant
and a contract.
250

THE OLD COVENANT 17:l-27
The tirne has n.w arrived for the details of fbe Old
Coueiiaizt to be set forth. “HOW could a rite of this sort
be inaugurated at all in a satisfactory manner without clear
directions a) as to what manner of operation it was to
be (v. 11) ; or b) as to at what age it was to be administered
(v. 12a) ; or c) as to who falls under its provisions,
whether only the direct descendants of Abraham
or also the slaves of the household (v. 12b) ; or d) as to
the absolute or relative necessity of this rite for all those
enumerated (v. 13). To impose the rite and leave all
these problems open would merely have caused grievous
perplexity to those entrusted with the duty of circumcision.
Consequently, all such critical remarks as ‘the
legal style of this section is so pronounced that it reads like
a stray leaf from the book of Leviticus,’ are just another
case where the nature of the circumstances that call for
just such a presentation is confused with the problem of
style. The question of various authors (J, E, and I?) does
not enter in at this point. No matter who the author is,
the case in question calls for this kind of presentation of
the necessary details” (EG, 522).
The details are, therefore, made very clear.
Lange
(CDHCG, 423) : “1. The act of circumcision: the removal
of the foreskin; 2. the destination; the sign of the covenant;
3. the time: eight days after the birth (se ch. 21:4, Lev.
12:3; Luke 1:19, 2:21; John 7:22, Phil. 3:5; Josephus,
Aiztiq. I, 12, 2); 4, the extent of its efficacy: not only
the children, but slaves born in the house (and those also
bought with his money) were to be circumcised; S. its
inviolability: those who were not circumcised should be
cut off, uprooted.” Note also the clear specification here,
v. 12--“every male throughout your generation,’’ etc.
Females were considered as represented in the males: thus
the patriarchal authority was divinely confirmed and the
unity and integrity of the family as well. The provisions
of the Mosaic Law were directed toward the preservation
211

1%; 1-27 ’ GENESIS,, . :g:*F;
of the-family as the social unit. Circumcision served to
cement all families into a single family or people of God.
(A people is rightly designated a nation.) I It was the sign
that set the national family (people) apiirt as belonging
exclusively to the living and true God.
Skinner (ICCG, 293) : “The Beritb is conceived as a
self -determination of God to be to one. particular race all
that the word God implies, a reciprocal ’a~t, of. choice on
man’s part being no essential featuqe. of the relation.”
(Why say it was so conceived? According to. the text it
was a self-determination on God’s part.) . Concerning vv.
6-7, rr&ngs shall come out of thee” (.cf. Mic. 5:?), “I will
establish my covenunt . . , to be a God aMtLtO- thee.’: Jamieson
writes (CECG, 1 5 1-1 52) : “Had this communication
to Abram been made at the time of his call, it could have
conveyed no other idea to the mind of one who had been
an idolater, and was imbued with the prejudices’ engendered
by idolatry, than that, instead of the .ideal fictitious deities
he had been accustomed to look to and worship, the true,
living, personal, God was to be substituted. But he had
now for a long series of years become familiarized with
the name, appearances, and educational training of Him
who had called him, and therefore he was prepared to
accept the promise in a wider and more comprehensive
sense-to understand, in short, that to ‘be a God unto him’
included all that God had been, or had promised to be to
him and to his posterity-an instructor, a guide, a governor,
a friend, a wise and loving father, who would confer
upon them whatever was for their good, chasten them
whenever they did wrong, and fit them for the high and
important destiny for which he had chosen them. It is
perfectly clear that this promise was primarily meant to
refer to the natural descendants of Abram, who, by the
election of grace, were to be separated from the rest of
the nations, and to the temporal blessings which it guaranteed
to, them (Rom. 11:16, 15:8) .” Note again v. 7, “to
252

THE OLD COVENANT 17:l-27
be to thee a God.” * “The essence of the covenant relation
is expressed by this hequently recurring formula” (Skinner,
ICCG, 293).
Leupold (EG, $22): “So then, first of all, since a
mark in the flesh might be cut into various parts of the
body, the divine command specifies what man’s thought
might well have deemed improbable, that this cutting was
to be ‘in the flesh’-euphemism-of their foreskin. Such
a peritonze will then certainly be ‘a sign of a covenant’
between God and a member of the covenant people. So
little does the unsanctified mind appreciate the issues involved,
that in the eyes of the Gentiles circumcision was
merely an occasion for ridicule of the Jews.” Again
(p. $24): “It certainly is passing strange to find critics
referring to this solemn rite which God ordained as a
‘taboo’--‘the taboo of the household required the circumcision’
of the purchased slave child (Procksch) . Taboos
are superstitious practices: here is one of the most solemn
divine institutions of the Old Testament.”
History of Circumcisiow.
Speiser ( ABG, 12 6) : “Cir-
cumcision is an old and widely diffused practice, generally
linked with puberty and premarital rites. In the ancient
Near East it was observed by many of Israel’s neighbors,
among them the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Ammonites,
the Moabites, and certain other nomadic elements (cf. Jer.
9:26). But the Philistines did not follow it (cf. 2 Sam.
1:20), and neither did the ‘Hivites’ (ie., Horites) of Cen-
tral Palestine (Gen. 34: 1 5). Nor was the custom in vogue
in Mesopotamia. Thus the patriarchs would not have been
likely to adopt circumcision prior to their arrival in Ca-
naan, which is just what the present account says in another
way. . . . Eventually, the rite became a distinctive group
characteristic, and hence also a cultural and spiritual
symbol. To P, however, it was essential proof of adher-
ence to the covenant.” (P, of course, is the Priestly Code,
to which this chapter is assigned by the critics.) Toy
2$3

17:1-27
(IHR, 68 ff.) : “The most widely*diefused of such customs
of initiation is the gashing or the complete removaI of, ths
prepuce. It existed in ancient times ong the Egyptians,
the Canaanites, and the Hebrews r the Arabs, the
Syrians, and the Babylonians and AsSyriaas we have no
information), not, so far as the records go, among the
Greeks, Romans, and Hindus. . At the present time it is
found among all Moslems and most Jewish communities,
throughout Africa, Australia, Polynesia and Melanesia,
and, it is said, in Eastern Mexico. I~is hardly possible to
say what its original distribution was;, and whether or not
there was a single center of distribution. As to its origin
many theories have been advanced. haracter as initiatorjr
is not an explanation-all - customs of initiation
needed to have their origins explained.” .This author goes
on to list these various theories as to the origin of the
practice, giving also the objections to them as follows: 1.
“It cannot be regarded as a test of endurance, for it involves
ho great suffering, and neither it nor the severer
operation of sub-incision (practiced in Australia) is ever
spoken of as an official test.” 2. “A hygienic ground is
out of the question for early society. The requisite medical
observation is then lacking, and there is no hint of such a
motive in the material bearing on the subject. . . . The
exact meaning of Herodotus’s statement that the Egyptians
were circumcised for the sake of cleanliness, preferring it
to beauty, is not clear; but in any case so late an idea
throws no light on the beginnings.” (Cf. Herod. 11, 7).
3. “Somewhat more to the point is Crawley’s view that the
abject of the removal of the prepuce is to get rid of the
dangerous emanation from the physical Secretion therewith
connected. . . . But this view, though conceivably
correct, is without support from known facts. . . . There is
no trace of fear of the secretion in question. . . nor does
this theory, account for the custom of subincision.” 4. “As
circumcision is of ten performed shortly before marriage,
2 54

THE OLD COVENANT 17:1-27
it has been suggested that its object is to increase pro-
creative phimosis. . . . Such an object, however, is im-
probable for low stages of society- it implies an extent
of observation that is not to be assumed for savages.” 5,
“There is no clear evidence that the origin of circumcision
is to be traced to religious conceptions. It has been held
that it is connected with the cult of the generative organs
(phallic worship). . . . But each of these customs is found
frequently without the other: In India we have phallic
worship without circumcision, in Australia circumcision
without phallic worship; and this separateness of the two
may be said to be the rule. The cult of the phallus seems
not to exist among the lowest peoples.” 6. “The view that
circumcision is of the nature of a sacrifice or dedication
to a deity, particularly to a diety of fertility, appears to
be derived from late usages in times when more refined
ideas have been attached to early customs. The Phrygian
practice of excision was regarded, probably, as a sacrifice.
But elsewhere, in Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, and Canaan,
where the worship of gods and goddesses of fertility was
prominent, we do not find circumcision connected there-
with. In the writings of the Old Testament prophets it is
treated as a symbol of moral purification. Among the
lower peoples there is no trace of the conception if it as a
sacrifice. It is not circumcision that makes the phallus
sacred-it is sacred in itself, and all procedures of savage
veneration for the prepuce assume its inherent potency.”
7. Nor can circumcision be explained as an attenuated
survival of human sacrifice. “The practice (in Peru and
elsewhere) of drawing blood from the heads or hands of
children on solemn occasions may be a softening of an old
savage custom, and the blood of circumcision is sacred.
But this quality attaches to all blood, and the essential
thing in circumcision is not the blood but the removal of
the prepuce.” 8. “The suggestion that the object of de-
taching and preserving the foreskin (a vital part of one’s
25j

‘17: 1-27 GENESIS 4- ‘
self) is to lay up a stock of vital*e , and thus secure
reincarnation for the disembodied,. spirit, is putting ah
afterthought for origin. The existence of the practice ‘in
question is doubtful, and it must have arisen, if it existed,
after circumcision had become an established custom.
Savages and other peoples, when they feel the need of
providing for reincarnation, commonly preserve the bones
or the whole body of the deceased.”
Lange (CDHCG, 423, 424) : .‘‘The Epistle of Barnabas,
in a passage which has not been sufficiently regarded
(ch. 9) brings into prominence the idea, that we must
distinguish circumcision, as an original custom of different
nations, from that which receives the patriarchal and theocratic
sanction. ‘The heathen circumcision,’ as Delitzsch
remarks, ‘leaving out of view the Ishmaelites, Arabians,
and the tribes connected with them both by blood and in
history, is thus very analogous to the heathen sacrifice.
As the sacrifice sprang from the feeling of the necessity
for an atonement, so circumcision from the consciousness
of the impurity of human nature.’ But that the spread of
circumcision among the ancient nations is analogous to
the general prevalence of sacrifice, has not yet been proved.
It remains to be investigated, whether the national origin
of circumcision stands rather in some relation to religious
sacrifice; whether it may possibly form an opposition to
the custom of human sacrifice (for it is just as absurd to
view it with some, as a remnant of human sacrifice, as to
regard it with others, as a modification of eunuchism);
whether it may have prevailed from sanitary motives, or
whether is has not rather from the first had its ground
and source in the idea of the consecration of the generative
nature, and of the propagation of the race. At all events,
circumcision did not come to Abraham us u custom of his
ancestors; he wus circumcised when ninety-nine yeurs of
age: This bears with decisive weight against the generalizing
of the custom by Delitzsch. As to the destination of
256

THE OLD COVENANT 17:1-27
circwmcisioia to be the sign of the covenad, its patriarchal
origin is beyo?id question.” Again, Gosman (CDHCG,
424): “As the rainbow was chosen to be the sign of the
covenant with Noah, so the prior existence of circumcision
does not render it less fit to be the sign of the
covenant with Abraham, nor less significant.” Murphy
(MG, 3 lo) : “The rainbow was the appropriate natural
emblem of preservation from a flood; and the removal of
the foreskin was the fit symbol of that removal of the old
man and renewal of nature, which qualified Abraham to
be the parent of a holy seed. And as the former sign foreshadows
an incorruptible inheritance, so the latter prepares
the way for a holy seed, by which the holiness and the
heritage will at length be universally extended.” Again,
Lange, ibid., p. 424): “See John 7:22. Still it was placed
upon a new legal basis by Moses (Exo. 4:24, 25 ; Lev. 12: 3),
and was brought into regular observance by Joshua (Josh.
~:2). That it should be the symbol of the new birth, i.e.,
of the sanctification of human nature, from its source
and origin, is shown both by the passages which speak of
the circumcision of the heart (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16,
30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25; Ezek. 44:7), and from the manner
of speech in use among the Israelites, in which Jewish proselytes
were described as new-born.”
Details of the Ordiizance of Circumcisioiz. (1) V,
IO--“every nzale among you shall be circumcised.” (Cf,
Exo. 12:48-49, Josh. 5:3, 7). This allowed for no exceptions;
at the same time it exempted all females. (It
should be noted that circumcision of girls (by the removal
of the clitoris and the labia minora) was a common custom
among many primitive peoples and continues to be practised
by some groups in our own time. Closely related to
circumcision of girls was the practice of introcision (enlargement
of the vaginal orifice by tearing it downward)
and infibulation (the closing of the labia just after circumcision).
The first two of the practices mentioned were
2 J7

17: 1-27 GENESIS
for the purpose of facilitating coition; the last-named was
for the purpose of preventing coition until the proper age
was reached. These practices were all characteristic of
initiation ceremonies associated with arrival at the age of
puberty. Obviously this could not have been the design
of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant: hence, we
must conclude that in it females we considered as repre-
sented by the males, as stated above. (2)
is eight days dd” (cf. Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:
3:j). This specific age requirement shows that in the
Abrahamic covenant circumcision could not have been a
Puberty rite in any sense of the term: we know of no
puberty rites performed on infants only eight days old.
(Note the interesting case of Zipporah and Moses and their
two sons, Exo. 2:22, 18:2-4, 4:24-26. The narrative in vv.
24-26 is somewhat obscure. It seems, however, that Eliezer
had been born a few days before Zipporah and Moses set
out on the journey back to Egypt. In the course of the
journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived
and his circumcision should have taken place. Evidently
the rite was repugnant to Zipporah and she deferred it,
with Moses weakly consenting to this act of disobedience.
At the end of the eighth day, when Moses went to rest for
the night, he was seized by what was probably a dangerous
illness of some kind. This he rightly regarded as a divinely
inflicted punishment, visited on him for his act of dis-
obedience. “To dishonor that sign and seal of the covenant
was criminal in any Hebrew, particularly so in one des-
tined to be the leader and deliverer of the Hebrews; and
he seems to have felt his sickness as a merited chastisement
for the sinful omission. Concerned for her husband‘s
safety, Zipporah overcomes her maternal feelings of aver-
sion to the painful rite, performs it herself, by means of
one if the sharp flints with which that part of the desert
abounded, an operation which her husband, on whom the
258

1
THE OLD COVENANT 17:1-27
duty devolved, was unable to do; and having brought the
bloody evidence, exclaimed, in the painful excitement of
her feelings, that from love to him she had risked the
life of her child” (Jamieson, CEC, Exo., iiz loco). Note
her reproachful words, “Surely a bridegroom of blood art
thou to me.” That is, ‘‘surely I have redeemed thy life,
and, as it were, wedded thee anew to me in the bloody
circumcision of thy son” (SIB, Exo., iia loco), Note the
following explanation (JB, 8 3 ) : “Zipporah circumcises her
son and simulates circumcision for her husband by touch-
ing his male organ with her son’s foreskin.” “Not to
circuumcise was tantamount to abrogating the covenant
(Gen. 17:14) and meant that the uncircumcised was cut
off from inclusion in the covenant people. Since the
advent of Christ, real circumcision has been of the heart
and not of the flesh, Rom 2:29” (HSB, 89). The rite
once performed, albeit reluctantly, God abated His anger
and permitted Moses to recover his strength and continue
his journey to Egypt. This incident surely proves that
fleshly circumcision was n,ot to be treated lightly under the
Old Covena;rzt. It poiizts up the fact also that no divine
ordination is to be tredted lightly. Think of the inafzy ways
iiz which churchmeit. have igizored, rejected, distorted, even
ridiculed, Christian baptisiiz! (3) Why OIZ the eighth day?
Perhaps because it was held that the child was not separated
and purified from its embryonic state until seven days had
gone by following birth, seven having been regarded as
the number (symbol) of perfection and the week of birth
was a terminus for the birth throes and labor (the time
element may have been definitely connected with the
ceremonial purification of the mother, Lev. 12). More-
over, as the law regarded animals used for sacrifice as
entering upon their independent existence with the eighth
day (Exo. 22:30, Lev, 22:17), so the human infant was
probably viewed from the same angle.
259

i7:l-27
1 ‘The follawing ) is worthy of
careful study here: “Eternal durat promised ‘.only
to the covenant established by God’with the s
ham, which was to grow into a multitude of
not to the covenant institution which4od established ‘in
connection with the lineal posterity of Abrahani, the twelve
tribes of Israel, Everything in this tution which was of
a local and limited character, and o ted the physical
Israel and the earthly Canaan, ex sa long as was
necessary for the seed of Abraha and into a multi-
tude of nations.
So again it
circumcision could be a sign of the et
Circumcision, whether it passed from Abraham to other
nations, or sprang up among other nations independently
of Abraham and his descendants, was based upon the re-
ligious view that the sin and moral impurity which the fall
of Adam had introduced into the nature of man had con-
centrated itself in the sexual organs, because it is in sexual
life that it generally manifests itself with peculiar force;
and, consequently, that for the sanctification of life, a
purification or sanctification of the organ of generation,
by which life is propagated, is especially required. In this
way circumcision in the flesh became a symbol of the
circumcision, ie., the purification of the heart (Deut.
10:16, 30:6; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 4:4, 9:25, Ezek. 44:7), and a
covenant sign to those who received it, inasmuch as they
were received into the fellowship of the holy nation (Exo.
19 : 6 ), and required to sanctify their lives, in other words,
to fulfill all that the covenant demanded. It was to be
performed on every boy on the eighth day after birth, not
because the child, like its mother, remains so long in a state
of impurity, but because, as the analogous rule with regard
to ehe fitness of young animals for sacrifice would lead us
to conclude, this was regarded as the first day of inde-
pendent existence (Lev. 22:27, Exo. 22:29) .”
2 60

THE OLD COVENANT 17:l-27
(4) Vv. 12, 13-Every male child “that is born in
thy house, or bought with moiiey of any foreigner that
is not of thy seed” (cf. Lev. 24:22, Num. 15:11-16).
Murphy (MG, 310) : This “points out the applicability of
the covenant to others, as well as the children of Abraham,
and therefore its capability of universal extension when the
fullness of the time should come. It also intimates the very
plain but very often forgotten truth, that our obligation to
obey God is not cancelled by our unwillingness. The serf
is bound to have his child circumcised as long as God re-
quires it, though he may be unwilling to comply with the
divine commandments.” It will be noted that the two
classes specified here were those male children born within
the limits of Abraham’s own household, and foreign male
children born of parents who had been bought with his
money. Obviously these two classes had to be taught to
“know Jehovah” after their induction into the covenant.
Cf. Jer. 31:31-34-here we learn that this fleshly covenant
was to give way in due time to a new spiritual covenant,
a covenant of faith; that is, all who enter into this new
covenant relationship should “know Jehovah” as a condi-
tion of admission. Under this New Covenant God’s law
would be written in their hearts (put into their inward
parts) as a prerequisite of their induction into the covenant
(cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-11, Heb. 8:6-13). Fleshly circumcision
should give way to spiritual circumcision, circumcision of
the heart (Rom. 2:28-29, Phil. 3:3, Col. 2:9-13). But
now the further question: Were such uncircumcised slaves
and slave children incorporated into the chosen people by
this rite? Leupold (EG, 524) : “We believe that the answer
must be, Yes. Israel certainly never had a separate slave
class, who were deemed inferior beings and mere chattels.
What then became of the slaves that originally were part
of the household establishment and went down into Egypt
at Jacob’s time? The answer seems to be: They were
naturally absorbed by the Israelites and blended with the
261

17:l-27 GENESIS ‘*
Israelite stock, adopting the Israelite’. ion. So with all
ecessary’ exclusiveness Israel wds at the same ti
broader in its attitude than assarire. I But there
certainly could be little hesita bout letting circumcised
slaves be merged with th n race.’’ The rite of
circumcision, instead of being the ‘badge of- any favored
class within the nation destined to spring from Abraham’s
loins, was, on pain of excommunication, to be open to the
lowliest member of the commonw Israel, even to
the bond-servant and the stranger. he penalty for
disobedience, either by omission or commission: “that soul
shall be cut off from his people.” Not infants,-who could
not circumcise themselves, but such- as wilfully neglected
the ordinance when they grew up; would nationally be
cut off from their people. Anyone who reounced this distinguishing
mark of Abraham’s seed, renounced his covenant
alliance ‘with God and fellowship with His people.
Nothing could be more reasonable, therefore, than that
they should be excluded from the privileges of the nation
and accounted as heathens. This is the import of cutting
off from his people in most of the passages where we find
the phrase (cf. Exo. 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38.-Lev. 7:20, 21,
2.7, 27; 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 22:3.-Num. 9:3, 19:13, 20). In
some passages, however, death is certainly connected with
the phrase, that is, death by the immediate hand of God
thru the magistrate (cf. Exo. 31:14; Lev. 18:29, 19:8; 20:3,
5, 6, 17; Num. 15:30, 31, 32-36). It is difficult to determine
whether this phrase indicated anything beyond
excommunication in the present instance. Certainly, however,
to despise and reject the sign, was to despise and reject
the covenant itself; hence, he who neglects or refuses
the sign, “he bath broken my couenunt” (v. 14). It can
not be doubted that in some cases capital punishment (by
stofiing to death) was the sanction inflicted for flagrant
violations of God’s law under the Mosaic institution. However,
“to suppose that such was its meaning here necessi-
2 62

THE OLD COVENANT 17:l-27
tates the restriction of the punishment to adults, whereas
with the alternative signification no such restriction requires
to be imposed on the statute. The uncircumcised
Hebrew, whether child or adult, forfeited his standing in
the congregation, i.e., ceased to be a member of the Hebrew
commonwealth: he bath brokeii nzy covenaiit” (Whitelaw,
PCG, 234).
Design of the Covenant Sign. “Not a divinely ordained
instrumentality for initiation into the people of God,
at least not for a native Israelite. He was a member of
the people of God by virtue of birth. By circumcision he
was made aware of his covenant obligations and received
a perpetual badge or reminder of these obligations” (Leupold,
EG, 521). Was it, as some would have it, “a selfimposed
obligation on the part of God, irrespective of any
condition on the part of man,” or was it, as others would
ct
say, a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obligations
between God and men”? We think Skinner’s explanation
is more to the point (ICCG, 298): “The truth seems
to lie somewhere between two extremes. The Berith is
neither a simple divine promise to which no obligation on
man’s part is attached (as in 15:18) nor is it a mutual
contract in the sense that the failure of one party dissolves
the relation. It is an immutable determination of God’s
purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate;
but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude
the individual from its benefits.” (The same is equally
true of the New Covenant). Circumcision here “becomes
a sign which, like the rainbow of 9: 16-17, is to remind
God of his Covenant and man of the obligations deriving
from his belonging to chosen people” (JB, 33, n.) . “Circumcision
was covenantal in nature, being the outward
sign or seal of the Abrahamic agreement which God made
(17: 11). The failure to be circumcised separated one from
the people of Israel. The command was perpetuated in
263

.
1Z:1-27
the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:3, JohmV17:22, 23). In the
gospel dispensation, circumcision wasvatbolished (Eph. 2 : 1.1 -
15, Col. 3:11), and to require it nov(is,to revert’ to legal-
ism. Circumcision in this age is of..rth‘e heart and not of
the flesh, but even when it was binding it. had no value
unless accompanied by faith and ob-edience (Rom. ’ 3 :30,
Gal. 5:6, Rom. 2:25, 1 Cor. 7:19)” (HSB, 28). .The most
important fact of all is that circumcisim *is tied up’dosely
with the Messianic hope. “For if it indicates the purifica-
tion of life at its source, it in the laktianalysis3 points for-
ward to Him through whom all such:purificatim is to be
achieved, who is Himself also to be born by a woman; but
is to be He in whom for the first time ;hat which circum-
cision prefigures will be actually realized” (EG, 521).
.4. The Covenant-Heir (vv. 1 5 -2 1 )
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sdrai thy
wife, thou shalt not cull her name Sarai, but Sarah shdl
her name be. 16 And 1 will bless her, and moreover 1 wiCl
give thee a son of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall
be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her.
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and
said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a
hundred years ald? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years
old, bear? 18 And Abraham said unto God, Oh that
Ishael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Nay,
but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thw shdt
call his name Isaac: and 1 will establish my covemnt with
him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishael, I hue heard thee: behold, I have
blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply
him.exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and 1 will
ma&- bim a, great nation. 21 But my covenant will I
establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at
this, set time in the next year.
2 64

THE OLD COVENANT 17:1-27
The Child of *Proinise. Sarah, not having mentioned
hitherto in any of the divine promises, is now explicitly
taken into the covenant, and accordingly receives a new
name. (Cf. Gen. 32127-28, Isa. 62:2, Rev. 3:12). In view
of the fact that she is to be the mother of the covenant-
heir, her name will no longer be Sarai, but Sarah (prin-
cess) ; that is; whereas formerly she was Abraham’s prin-
cess only, she is now to be recognized as princess generally,
especially as princess to the Lord. Moreover, it is now
expressly announced for the first time that the Child of
Promise-the promised seed-was to be Sarah’s child; that
he should be born “at this set time in the next year”; that
his name should be Isaac (“laughter”). (Cf. 16:11 on
naming prior to birth). V. 16--“A mother of izatioizs
she shall be; kings of Peoples shall be of her.” This promise
did not include the Ishmaelites or the sons of Keturah
(25: 1-4) : they were not born of Sarah. The Israelites
descended from her, but were only one nation. Hence
this promise must mean that the posterity of Abraham
embraced his spiritual posterity also, i.e., all peoples who
are “grafted” into the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29;
Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 17; 11:15-24), Aptly she was named
Sarah: she was to bear the child of promise, to become a
mother of peoples, and a mother of kings. History testi-
fies, of course, that all the parts of this divine promise were
literally fulfilled.
Abraham’s Laughter, v. 7. Interpretations of the
patriarch’s response to this announcement of the identity
of the Child of Promise are varied. For example, Skinner
(ICCG, 295) “Abraham’s demeanor is a strange mixture of
reverence and incredulity.” Cornfeld ( AtD, 67) : “God
was not conceived as impersonal in patriarchal times, and
if we are to understand properly the biblical texts, we must
develop a feeling for a social phenomenon of the times,
the closeness of men to gods, and of the Hebrews to God.
In our society a man who claims to have divine visitors is
26j

17:1-27 GENESIS
regarded as queer. That is why it is not easy for every
modern reader, who is not familiar with the ancient back-
ground and literatures, to understand that aspect of He-
brew society. For the ancient Hebrews, the human and
divine intermingled freely. The early direct relationship
between men and gods is common to all the epics: Ugarit,
Mesopotamian, Greek and proto-patriarchal. This simple
personal contact between men and God was gradually
eliminated.” Again: “A charming tradition illustrates how
Abraham, on intimate terms with the Lord, dared to inter-
cede with him, in the famous dialogue over the problem
of the wicked people of Sodom and its few, hypothetical
righteous men.” (Cf. Moises and God, Exo. 19:7-15 ; Num.
11:lO-23, 14:ll-35). But, note Lange’s comment
(CDHCG, 424) : “That the interpreter . , . knows nothing
of a laugh of astonishment, in connection with full faith,
indeed, in the immediate experience of the events (Psa.
126:l-2) is evident. . . . We may confidently infer from
the different judgments of Abraham’s laughter here, and
that of Sarah, which is recorded afterward, that there was
an important distinction in the states of mind from which
they sprang. The characteristic feature in the narration
here is, that Abraham fell upon his face, as at first, after
the promise, v. 2.” “The laughter of Abraham was the
exultation of joy, not the smile of unbelief” (Augustine,
De Ciw. Dei, 16, 26). Certainly the laughter of Sarah
later (18:lZ-lj) was one of incredulity, but the concept
of Abraham in a derisive attitude toward God is not in
keeping with the patriarch’s character. Murphy (MG,
311) : “From the reverential attitude assumed by Abra-
ham we infer that his laughter sprang from joyful and
grateful surprise. Said in his heurt. The following ques-
tions of wonder are not addressed to God; they merely
agitate the breast of the astonished patriarch. Hence his
irrepressible smile arises not from any doubt of the fulfill-
ment of the promise, but from surprise at the unexpected
266

THE OLD COVENANT 17:l-27
mode in which it is to be fulfilled. Laughing in Scripture
expresses joy in the countenance, as dancing does in the
whole body.” Jarnieson (CSCG, 153) : “Jt was not the
sneer of unbelief, but a smile of delight at the prospect of
so improbable an event (Rom. 4:20) ; he fully believed the
word of God; there was humility blended with wonder and
joy. This is what our Lord alluded to, John 8:Ii6. As
Abraham saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw
Christ in the promise of Isaac (laughter.) ” “Abraham’s
laughter is to be echoed by Sarah’s, 18:12, and Ishmael’s,
2 1 :9 (see also 2 1 :6) : each is an allusion to the name Isaac
. . . which means, ‘May God smile, be kind’ or ‘has smiled,
has been kind.’ Abraham’s laughter is a sign not so much
of unbelief as of surprise at the extraordinary announce-
ment; his mention of Ishmael, present heir-apparent to the
Promise, is an implicit request for reassurance.” Speiser
would render it, he swiled, anticipating the personal name
Isaac. He adds (ABG, 125): “A Hurro-Hittite tale de-
scribes the father (Appu) as placing his newborn son on
his knees and rejoicing over him. Such acts were often
the basis for naming the child accordingly. The shortened
form Zsaac (with the subject left out) undoubtedly re-
flects some such symbolic gesture: (X) rejoiced over,
smiled on (the child) , etc.” Leupold (EG, 527) : “From
what follows it becomes very clear that Abraham’s atti’tude
in no way lays him open to blame. Nothihg is indicative
of doubt or misgivings in his reply. Consequently, when
he falls upon his face, this is an act of worshipful adoration.
Also his laughter is the laughter of joy and surprise. A host
of glad feelings is called forth in him at this precious
promise. So, too, the questions express no doubt but
happy wonder. For saying ‘to himself’ the Hebrew uses
the more expressive belibbo, ‘in his heart.’ ” “Abraham
laughed, in virtue of his firm belief of the promise, and
his satisfaction therein (Rom. 4: 16-2 5 , John 8 : 5 6 ) ; but
2 67

17:1-27 GENESIS
Sarah laughed in unbelieving derision, ch. 18:12 (SIB,
240). “After twenty-four years of impatient waiting, the
words of God seem an idle fancy to Abraham. All of the
outward circumstances were against him. The biological
facts of life stood over against the promise of God. Sight
and sense told him the promise was impossible of fulfillment.
Yet Abraham was a man of faith who had moments
of doubt. How much we can learn from his laugh of
disbelief here!” (HSB, 29).
Abraham’s - Intercession for Ishael v. I. 8. Would
that Ishmael might live in your favor! was Abraham’s
’plea. We may assume-or so it seems to this writer-that
Abraham had fallen into the erroneous expectation that
the divine promise would be fulfilled in Ishmael, and since
there is no record of any divine correction of his error in
the meantime, it is difficult to see how the patriarch could
have avoided this conclusion. Undoubtedly Hagar had
communicated to ’ him the substance of the revelation
granted ‘her as to her own son’s destiny (16:lO-11) and
this surely would -have strengthened his conviction. Now
he receives the final :communication from God which
expressly. identifies the covenant-heir as Sarah’s child who
is to be born “at‘this set time in the next year,” his paternal.
solicitude manifptsuigelf for the firstborn, the child
*of the ,handmaiden, pyts an end to he, old, sadz doubt,
.in, regard .to ,Ishmael, since it starts a new and, transient
doubt in reference’ to ,the promise of Isaac; therefore there
.is mingling with- his: faith,. not, yet perfect on account of
the jay (Luke 24:41.), a beautiful paternal. feeling for. the
.still. *belaved IIs.hmael;->amd his >future of faith. Hence the
. ‘intercession .for Ishmael; the. characteristic feature of which
.is, ’ a question of-lotfe, whether the son of the long-delayed
hope, shouEdt‘ also ’hbld +his share of the blessing” (Lange,
‘ CDHCG;’dillJ‘)., Let Idimael live and prosper under thy
favor, was Abraham’s plea. God answers, “I have ‘heard
268

THE OLD COVENANT 17: 1-27
thee,” and agrees to bestow His blessing in a fourfold man-
ner; Ishmael is to be fruitful, that is, prolific; he is to be
multiplied exceedingly; he is to beget twelve princes (cf
Gen. 2Y:12-16) : he is to become “a great nation” (people).
Some nations might have called these rulers “kings,” but
the Ishmaelites called them ccprinces.” Nevertheless, the
divine promise is expressly reaffirmed : the true couenant-
heir shall be Sarah’s child (v. 21 ) . (“As for Ishmael, I
have heard thee,” an allusion to the significance of the
name Ishmael, which means “God hears.”) “Abraham still
hoped that Ishmael would be recognized, but this plea and
God’s answer in v. 19 shows that man’s answers and ways
can never be substituted for God’s’’ (HSB, 29). The bless-
ings of the covenant were reserved for Isaac, but common
blessings were to be showered abundantly on Ishmael; and
though the covenant relationship did not descend from his
family, yet personally he might, and it is to be hoped did,
enjoy its benefits. “And God left off talking with him,
and God went up from Abraham,” went up to heaven.
(cf. 35:13) : a most interesting concluding statement. .
j. Abraham’s Obedience, vv. 22-27
22 And he left off talking with him, and * ‘
God went
up from Abraham.
t 23 And Abraham took Ishmael his som,.‘md all thait
were born in his house, and all that were bought with his
s on by, eOery male among the men of Abraham’s bouse;
and circumcised the flesh of their f oreskin,; .in the self -same
day, as God had said unto hiin. 24 ,And Abraham was
ninety years old and nine, wheiz he was circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin. 2j And Ishnwel his son was thh-teea
years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh ”of his fore-
skin. 26 In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised,
and Ishmael his soiz; 27 And all the men ,of his house, born
in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were
circumcised with him.
2 69

17:1-27 GENESIS
The prompt obedience of Abraham is shown by his
circumcising himself and all male members of his household
without delay (“in the selfsame day”). The text
indicates that Abraham performed the rite upon himself
and upon Ishmael first, and then upon the men of his
house, “those born in the house and those bought with
money of a foreigner.” Abraham was 99 and Ishmael 13
years old when the circumcision was performed. (According
to the testimony of Josephus, Ad. I. 12. 2, the Arabs
delay circumcision until the 13th year. By Moslems
Ishmael is hailed as an ancestor, buried with his mother in
the Kaaba at Mecca.) “Abraham’s faith triumphed over
his doubts. He responded to the covenant by circumcising
himself and all his males. Thus he passed another crucial
stage in his walk and experience with the covenantkeeping
God! (HSB, 29). Note well, v. 27--“all the men
of his house, those born in the house, and those bought
with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.”
Jamieson (CECG, 1j4): “Whatever had become the
heathen version of this symbol, no one will deny that when
the Hebrew patriarch circumcised the members of his
h acted ,with a definite purpose and was
rit thbroughly religious. The symbol was
I, and was distinguished. not only for its
he grandeur of the end for which it
lated into words, the meaning b
I am hply.’ Outward in the flesh,,
the sterner genius of the old economy,
it imprinted . , on, the mind of every Hebrew the
pekuliar closeness is.‘own relations to the pure andL
perfect God, , and cessity therein implied of fearing
and loving Him, a mcising (Deut. 10:12-16) more
and more ‘the fo ‘the heart.’ The narrative describes
the rite as performed upon ‘every male’ in ‘Abraham’s
house.’ Females had no equivalent for it. The
270

THE OLD COVENANT 17: 1-27
absence of circumcision, however, did not convey the idea
that the privileges of the covenant were not applicable to
woman also, but that she was dependent, and that her posi-
tion in the natural and covenant-life was not without the
husband, but in. and with him-not in her capacity as
woman, but as wife (and mother). Woman was sancti-
fied and set apart in and with man; in and with him she
had part in the covenant, and so far as her nature and posi-
tion demanded and admitted of it, she had to co-operate
in the development of the covenant!”
The Covenant, God repeated (v. 21) for emphasis no
doubt, should be established with Isaac whom Sarah was
to bear to Abraham at that very time in the following year.
“Since Ishmael therefore was excluded from participating
in the covenant grace, which was ensured to Isaac alone;
and yet Abraham was to become a multitude of nations,
and that through Sarah, who was to become ‘nations’
through the son she was to bear (v. 16) ; this ‘multitude
of nations’ could not include either the Ishmaelites or The
tribes descended from the sons of Keturah (ch. 25:2 ff.),
but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of Isaac’s
two sons received no part of the covenant promise, but only
the descendants of Jacob alone. But the whole of the
twelve sons of Jacob founded only the one nation of Israel,
with which Jehovah established the covenant made with
Abraham (Exo. chs. 6, 20-24), so that Abraham became
through Israel the lineal father of one nation only. From
this it necessarily follows, that the posterity of Abraham,
which was to expand into a multitude of nations, extends
beyond this one lineal posterity, and embraces the spiritual
posterity also, ;.e., all nations who are grafted ix fiisieos
Abraain into the seed of Abraham, Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, 17) .”
(KD, 226). By this enlargement it follows that in reality
Abraham received the promise “that he should be heir of
the world” (Rom. 4: 13 ) . 27 1

17:1-27 I GENESIS
To summarize: “The covenant plays an important
role in Abraham’s experience, Note the successive revelations
of God after the initial promise to which Abraham responded
in obedience. As God enlarged this promise, Abraham
exercised faith which was reckoned to him as righteousness
(Gen. 1 j ). In this covenant the land of Canaan
was specificially pledged to the descendants of Abraham.
With the promise of the son, circumcision was made the
sign of the covenant (Gen. .17). This covenant promise
was finally sealed in Abraham’s act of obedience wheq he
demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice his only son Isaac
(Gen. 22) ” (Schultz, OTS, 34).
FOR MIDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Two Covenants, or From Sinai to Cdwary
John 1:17, Gal. 3:23-29, Heb. 8, 2 Cor. 3.
. Every student of the Bible knows that it consists of
two general divisions or parts: what is known as the Old
Testament or Covenant, and what is known as the New
Testament or Covenant (the Testaments being the stereo-
typed records of the respective Covenants) ; what is known
as the Law before the Cross, and what is known as the
Since the Cross; what is known as the ‘‘letter” on
the other side of the Cross, and what is known as the
on this side; what is called the ministration of
n the other side, and what is called. “the minis
n this side; what is known as “the ministra-
on the other side, and what is
known as “th on of righteousness” on this side.
Calvary is the dividing line. When Jesus died on the
Cross, the Partition Veil, i.e., the curtain between the Holy
Place and the y of Holies, of the Temple, was rent in
twain (Matt. 27:,l1), thus, symbolizing the point of de-
marcation between the Covenants and signifying that for
the first time since man’s fall, the way into heaven itself,

THE OLD COVENANT
the Holy of Holies, was opened up; that humanity had
unhindered access to the Throne of Grace, through Christ,
and without the services of an officiating earthly priest-
hood. In brief the rent veil symbolized the abrogation of
the Old Covenant and the ratification of the New.
The books of the Old Testament point forward in
type, symbol, metaphor and prophecy, to Christ and His
church as revealed in the New Testament. The subject-
matter of the Old Testament is valuable to us historically,
and in its delineation of human character and its treatment
of the problems of everyday living, its ethical value is in-
estimable. Its evidential worth, in laying a proper founda-
tion for the Christian system, is immeasurable. But the
books of the Old Testament do iiot reveal the Christian
yeligioiz. Though inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were
for the fleshly seed of Abraham. Christianity is not re-
vealed in the Old Testament, except in shadow, as a thing
of the future, as a system yet to be instituted. In the
words of the well-known couplet:
“In the Old Testament we have the New Testament
concealed,
In the New Testament we have the Old Testament
revealed.”
It should be understood also that the two Covenants are
not identical; that is, that the New is not a continuation or
enlargement of the Old, but a distinct and separate Cove-
nant, enacted upon better promises and offering infinitely
greater blessings and rewards (Heb. 8 : 6, Eph. 2 : 1 5 - 16) .
(Note the significance of the expression, “one new man,”
as used in this connection).
It becomes exceedingly important that we know what
belongs to the respective Covenants. (Cf. 2 Tim. 2:1~),
Much confusion has resulted from the failure of theo-
logians and preachers generally to make the proper distinc-
273

GENESIS
tions. We hear it said even in our day of enlightenment
that “the whole Bible is binding upon Christians.” Cer-
tainly those who make such assertions do not believe what
they say, or, if they do, they do not practice what they
preach. This writer does not know of a church group in
all Christendom that even makes a pretense of perpetuating
the laws and observances of the Old Covenant. For ex-
ample, under the Old Covenant, God commanded the fol-
lowing: (1) that every male child should be circumcised
on the eighth day, Gen. 7:9-14; (2) that many different
kinds of animal sacrifices should be offered; Lev. 23; (3)
that the Passover should be kept annually Exo. 12; (4)
that the seventh day should be set aside as the Sabbath, as
a memorial of the deliverance of the children of Israel from
Egyptian bondage, Exo. 16:21-30, Deut. J:l2-lJ; (5) that
the people should allow their lands to rest every seventh
year, Exo. 23:lO-11; (6) that a distinction should be
made between “clean” and “unclean” animals, Lev. 11 ;
(7) the Leviticai priesthood, the tabernacle and its ritual-
ism, the Day of Atonement, the many and varied solemn
feasts and convocatiofis, new moons and sabbaths, etc.
Under the Old Covenant no one was permitted to kindle
a fire on the Sabbath day, (Exo. 35 :2-3). In Numbers
1 5 :23-26 there is an account of a violation of this com-
mand, and we read that the guilty man was taken outside
the camp and stoned to death. Capital punishment was
usually inflicted for an infraction of the Law of Moses;
hence, the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant as “the
ministration of death,” 2 Cor. 3:7. The various Christian
bodies make no pretense of maintaining these Mosaic laws
and observances, and would indeed be foolish to do so, be-
cause they are not in any sense a part of the Christian
Gospel or system. They were for the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham only, and were abrogated along with the Mosaic Law
at the death of Christ.
274

THE OLD COVENANT
The distinctions between the Two Covenants may be
listed briefly as follows:
1. The Old was made with the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham only. It was first announced to Abraham himself,
and was later enlarged into a national covenant at the time
of the establishment of the Jewish theocracy under Moses,
at Mout Sinai, Gen. 12:l-3, 17:l-8, 22:1F-18; Deut. 5:2-
5, Gal. 3:19. It is generally known as the Abrahamic
Covenant. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is an
overture to all mankind, although its blessings are confined
to those who comply with its conditions of membership,
Matt. 28:19-20, Acts 10:34-43, 17:30-31; Rom. 10:9-10,
Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:26-29.
2. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Jesus
of the New (Deut. F:J; Heb. 3:l-6, 8:6, 9:18-28, 12:24;
1 Tim. 2:j).
3. The basis of membership in the Old Covenant was
fleshly. The Covenant included those born in Abraham’s
house and those bought with Abraham’s money, that is,
those born of Hebrew parents and those retained as slaves
in the Hebrew households, Gen. 17:12. Obviously, all such
infants and heathen servants bad to be taught to “~IZQW
Jehovah” after they had beeii iiiducted into the Coveizant by
circumcision. But the basis of membership in the New
Covenant is spiritual, Jer. 31:31-33-34, John 3:l-6: it de-
pends not on earthly parentage, nor upon inclusion in any
particular racial or ethnic group, but upon spiritual birth.
(See Jer. 3 1;3 1-34, John 3: 1-6), Under the New, God
must write His laws in our hearts, and we must all know
Him, from the least unto the greatest of us, in order to
be admitted into the Covenant, In a word, one of the
things absolutely necessary to participation in the blessings
of the New Covenant is that we know God by faith in
Jesus Christ who came to reveal God to us (John 14:1,
Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:9-10, etc.). We know Him by faith,

GENESIS
and we appropriate the blessings of the Covenant by obed-
ience (Rom. 10:17, Heb. 11:6, Matt. 7:24-27, John 15:14,
Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:8, 1 Pet. 1:22). This, of course,
does not include the innocent and the irresponsible, such
as infants, for whom Jesus atoned unconditiolzally when
He died on the Cross. Those who die in infancy pass di-
rectly from the kingdom of innocence into the kingdom
of glory (Rom. 5:19, 1 John 3:4, Matt. 19:14, 18:l-6,
etc.)
4. The seal of the Old Covenant was fleshly circum-
cision (Gen. 17:9-14). The seal of the New Covenant is
the indwelling Spirit of God (2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13,
4:30, etc.). This cutting off of the old sinful relationship
and life by the entrance of the Holy Spirit into the obedient
believer’s heart is spiritual circumcision (Acts 2 :3 8-39,
Rorn. 2:28-29, Phil. 3:3, Col. 2:9-12, Eph. 1:13-14).
5. The Old Covenant was national, confined to one
people, the fleshly seed of Abraham, The Mosaic Code
was a civil code for the government of the Theocracy of
Israel. In this sense the Law of Moses might be said to
correspond to the civil statutes of the United States of
America, and the Decalogue, which was the core of the
Mosaic Law, to our federal Constitution (Deut. 5:2-21).
The tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments
were engraved were known as the tables of testimony or
tables of the Covenafit (Exo., 24:12, 31:18, 32:15-16;
Deut. 6:20-23, 4:13, 10:1-5). The New Covenant is for
all mankind. It has no geografibical or racial limitations.
The Decalogue is God’s mandate to humanity, binding on
ruled and ruler alike.
6. The Old Covenant was local ie., adapted to a peo-
ple living in a fairly warm climate. Its provisions pertained
largely to matters of the flesh, “meats and drinks and
divers washings, carnal ordinances, imposed until a time
of reformation” (Heb. 9:10). How could any human
being living in a cold climate obey the Old Covenant
276

THE OLD COVENANT
regulations governing the observance of the Sabbath, one
of which was that no fire was to be kindled on that day?
The commands of the New Covenant are, on the other
hand, moral and spiritual in nature, and can be obeyed by
all people in all parts of the world. This is not only true
with respect to Christ’s ethical teaching, but equally so
with respect to His positive ordinances-baptism, the
Lord’s Supper, and the Lord’s Day (Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:26-
27; 1 Cor. 11:23-30, 16:l-2). These ordinances can be
observed anywhere regardless of circumstances, climate,
or environment.
7. The penalty for violating the Old Covenant was
in most cases physical deuth. The penalty for refusing the
overtures of the New Covenant is spiifijti~al death, eternal
separation from “the face of the Lord and from the glory
of his might” (2 Thess. 1:8-9, Rev. 2O:ll-lJ). For ex-
ample, under the Old Covenant adultery was a crime for
which the death penalty was inflicted, usually by stoning;
under the New, it is a sin which will damn the soul.
8. The New Covenant is a better Covenant because
it has been “enacted upon better promises7y (Heb. 8:6).
Under the Old, for instance, there was no actual remission
of sins, for the simple reason that animal sacrifices were
not a sufficient atonement for the guilt of sin (Heb.
1O:l-18). On each annual Day of Atonement the High
Priest of Israel went into the Holy of Holies with the
prescribed offerings for his own sins and for the sins of the
people, in response to which God merely laid the guilt
of their sins over to the next annual Day of Atonement,
and so on throughout the entire Jewish Dispensation. There
was never any actual remission of sins until the Son of
God Himself made the sufficient Atonement “once at the
end of the ages . . . by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:6-
10, 23-28; Exo. 30:10, Lev. 23). Under the New Cove-
nant, however, remission of sins is one of the promises of
the Gospel (Acts 2:38, 10:43; Luke 24:45-49). We have
277

GENESIS .
God’s promise that on condition of our own faith and
continued obedience He will be merciful with respect to
our iniquities and will remember our sins against us no
more (Jer. 31:31-34, Heb. 8:lO-12). And let us remember
that when God forgives, He forgeis (Psa. 103:12,
Heb. 8:12).
9. Under the Old Covenant there was no distinct
assurance of blessedness beyond the grave. Old Testament
intimations of the future life are indefinite (cf. Job 14:13-
1 5 > 19:25-27; Psa. 23). But the Christian Scriptures speak
with positiveness about Judgment, blessedness, Life Everlasting,
immortality, etc. Jesus Himself spoke of the
future life in such unmistakable terms as to leave no room
for doubt, and the Apostles testify with no less finality
about these matters in their own writings. (John 11:25-
26, 10:18;, Acts 2:36, 17:31; Matt. 2j:31-46; Rom. 6:28,
8:ll; 2 Cor. 5:l-4, Phil. 3:20-21, 1 Cor. lj, etc.).
10. The Old Covenant was negative throughout, The
Ten Commandments have been called the “thou-shaltnots”
of God. The contrast between the thunderings of
Jehovah above Sinai announcing the prohibitions of the
Decalogue, and the gentle accents of the Son of Man proclaiming
the Beatitudes, in His “Sermon on the Mount,”
is an analogy of the distinction between the Covenants.
Na wonder, then, that the New Covenant is called “the
royal law” and “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (Jas.
2:8, 1;22).
‘ , . 11. The Decalpgue was the foundati
heart, so to, speak, of Law of Moses, Yet the Ten
Commandments were d to the Cross, along with the
xest of the Law. They were not abolished, but were
abroguted, i,e., set aside, then re-enacted, with but one
exception, in stament. We as Christians are
subject to thq, grovisions. of the Decalogue only to the
extent that is fundamental ethical principles, which are
necessarily permanent, have been re-enacted as a part of
278

THE OLD COVENANT
the Christian System. When a man makes two wills, he
may take certain provisions of the old will and re-incorporate
them in the new; and they are binding, not because
they were in the old, but because they are in the new. A
careful survey of the apostolic writings reveals the fact
that all the Ten Commandments, with but one exception,
have been re-stated in the Christian Scriptures, with
this fundamental difference: in the Old they are stated
negatively, but in the New, positively. The Fourth Commandment
is not re-enacted in the New Testament. There
is no command in the apostolic writings that we as Christians
should keep the Sabbath. There would be no reason
for our keeping it, as it was a memorial to the fleshly seed
of Abraham of their fathers’ deliverance from Egyptian
bondage. It would be meaningless to a Gentile. Therefore,
we as Christians are to keep the first day of the week,
the Lord’s Day, instead of the seventh day. The Lord’s
Day is a memorial of the resurrection of our Lord (Mark
16:9, Acts 20:7, Rev. l:lO, Psa. 118:22-24, Acts 4:ll-
12). (Note the parallels: Exo. 20:3-Acts 4:15, 17:24-
31; Exo. 20:4-6-1 John 5:21; Exo. 20:7-Jas. j:12; Exo.
20:12-Eph. 6:l-4; Exo. 20:13-Rom. 13:9-10; Exo.
20:14-Matt. 5:28, 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Exo. 20:lj-Eph. 4:28;
EXO. 20:16-C0I. 3:9; EXO. 20:17-Eph. 5:s.)
A great many persons seem to have the notion-and
it is one that should be corrected-that all they need to
do to be saved is to keep the Ten Commandments. This
is a false and misleading idea. Obeying the Ten Com-
mandments will make a man a respectable citizen and keep
him out of jail, but he might obey the Coinmandments
consistently, even perfectly if that were possible, and still
not be a Christian. (Cf. Mark 10:17-22). There is nothing
in the Decalogue about Christ and His church. We might
keep the Commandments perfectly and never believe in
Christ, never be baptized, never pray, never observe the
Lord’s Supper, never attend a Christian worshiping assem-
279

GENESIS ’
bly. The Decalogue is not the Gospel, nor is it any Part
of the Gospel. Though essential to good morals, it is a
minor part of the Chtistian system of faith and worship.
Moreover, Jesus made it quite clear that, spiritually, the
Decalogue is inadequate, when, in answer’ to a question
propounded by His critics, He pointed out the two great-
est commandments in the Law, and neither of the two is
found among the Ten Commandments (Matt, 22:31-40,
Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18). In brief, we must keep the Ten
Commandments to stay out of jail, but one might keep
all of them and still fall far shore of being a Christian.
Frequently we have been asked the question, Why
can we not be saved as the jeaitent thief (on the Cross)
was suued? The answer is obvious. As long as a will-
maker (testator) lives, he dispenses his property as he sees
fit personally; but when he dies, his property must be dis-
pensed as directed in his last will and testament (cf. Heb.
9: 16-17) ; and so, as long as our Lord was on earth in the
flesh, it was His prerogative to dispense his gifts and
graces as He saw fit (Luke 23:39-43, 1:17-26). But when
He returned to the Father, He left us His Last Will and
Testament, the executors of which were the Apostles, by
wh’6m:it was probated on the great Day of Pentecost; and
so, a throughout
the present Dispensation His blessings are
the conditions specified in the New Covenant;
these are, the “keys of the king ,” and the terms of
admission into the Church‘ (Body Chriit>lfi Th I r-es&acJ~a$:*
tions are faith‘in Christ, is the Son of the living God, repentance
toward Christ,’ confession of Christ, and baptism
into Christ’ (Matt. 16318-20, 28:18-20; Acts 2:38, 16:31-
34; Rom. 10:9-10, Luke 13:3, 2 Cor. 7:10, Matt. 10:32-
33,; Acts’ 8!34-39, 22:16; Rom. 6:4-6, Gal. 3:26-29, John
3:1-5, etc.). (The fdnction of a key is to unlock a door;
hence the “keys of the kingdom” are the requirements
which open the door of the church to the obedient be-
I “ *
liever . )
280

THE OLD COVENANT
12. The Law was a civil code for the government of
the old Jewish theocracy. It was never intended to be a
permanent and universal rule of religious faith and practice.
It was added, the Apostle tells us, that is, added to the
Abrahamic promise, “because of transgressions, till the seed
should come to whom the promise hath been made” (Gal.
3 : 19). The tendency of the Children of Israel to drift
into the customs and practices of their idolatrous heathen
neighbors occasioned the giving of the Law. Under conscience
alone the people became such habitual sinners that
it became necessary to put them under a code of law, in
order that they might know the eternal distinctions between
good and bad, right and wrong. Such is the purpose
of law, generally speaking: it is to define right and
distinguish it from wrong. Law was never eizacted to make
people better, but for the purpose of restraining the lawless
and protecting the weak from the strong. (Cf. Rorn.
7:7-11, 3:19-20). Therefore, what the Law could not do
for man, God did for him by a manifestation of His
infinite grace in the person of His Only Begotten (Rom.
8~3-4).
13. To summarize: as stated above, God has made
two wills. The first was made with respect to the fleshly
seed of Abraham, through the mediation of Moses (Deut,
5). The last is an overture to all mankind through the
mediation of Jesus Christ. The Old was ratified by the
blood of animals at Sinai: the New’ was ratified by ‘the
precious blood of Christ on Calvary. (Cf. Heb. 8:ll-22)’.
the death of our Lord abrogated the Old and ratified the
New at the same time (Col. 2:13-15, Heb. 8:23-28). He
nailed the Law to His Cross and ushered in the universal
reign of grace. God graciously permitted the Law to re-
main as a civil code for the Jewish people down to the
time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but its
binding force was removed when Jesus was crucified. One
of the elementary principles of law is that a new will
281

GENESIS
automatically abrogates all prior testaments. .We today
are under “the Last Will and Testament of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.” We are not under Law, but under
grace; not under the bond written in ordinances, but under
the Law of the Spirit of Iife in Christ Jesus. (John 1:17,
Jer. 31:31-34, Rom. 4:21-31, Gal. 3:15-29, 2 Cor. 3:l-
11, Heb. 8; Col. 2:8-17, etc.).
Circumcisicm of the Heart
Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25-26. Cf. Rom. 2:28-
29, Phil. 3:3, Acts 7:51, Gal. 3:27-28, 2 Cor. 3:Z-6, Col.
2:9-13. The Scriptures teach expressly that there is such
a thing as “circumcision of the heart.” But what does
“heart” (Heb. leb, Gr. Rardiu) mean in Scripture? This
we can determine by what the “heart” is said to do, to
experience, to suffer, etc., namely, it thinks (Gen. 6:5,
Deut. 15:9, Prov. 23:7, Matt. 9:4, Heb. 4:12); it reasom
Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22); it understands (Matt. 13:lY); it
believes (Rom. 10:8-10) ; it loves (Matt. 22:37) ; it knows
(Deut. 29:4) ; it r’bre&’ with sorrow (Jer. 8:18, 239) ;
it can be grieved (Deut. 15:lo); it can be troubled (John
14:l) ; it, can be feurfd (John 14:27) ; it rejoices (Psa.
ts. 2:26) j it can be comforted (Eph. 6:22) ;
ses,” ccdeterminesyy (Dan. 1:8, 2 Cor. 9:7,
1 Cor. 7:37); it can lust (Matt. 5:28, Rom. 8:6-7); it
obeys (Rom. 6:17, Eph. 6:6+; it upproves and condemns
(Rom, 2:14-16, Acts 2:37, 1 John 3:19-22). From all
these texts ,we must conclude that the Scriptural “heart”
includes intellect, feeling, conscience, and will. It is the
entire “inner man,” everything that is not included in the
phrase, “flesh and blood” (John 3 :6, 1 Cor. 15 : 50, 2 Cor.
4:16, Rom. 7:22, cf. 1 Pet. 3:4--“the hidden man of the
heart”).
1. There is such ;E g as spiritual circumcision, “A
circumcision not made with hands.” The Bible leaves no
room for doubt on this matter.
282

THE OLD COVENANT
2. Fleshly (physical) circumcision of the Old Covenant
was designed to be a type of spiritual circumcision
under the New. Hence, as the circumcision ordained in
the Old Testament was a seal stamped upon the flesh, it
follows that the circumcision ordained in the New Testament
must be a seal stamped on the 9nin.d or spirit of man,
the true “inner man” (Cf. John 3:l-8, Acts 2:38, Jer.
31:33, Ezek. 11:19).
Whitelaw writes (PCG, 232) that fleshly circumcision
was designed (1) to be a sign of the faith that Christ
should be descended from Abraham, and (2) to be a
symbolic representation of the putting away of the filth of
the flesh and of sin in general; therefore, it served the following
uses: “(1) to distinguish the seed of Abraham
from the Gentiles, (2) to perpetuate the memory of
Jehovah’s covenant, (3) to foster in the nation the hope
of the Messiah, (4) to remind them of the duty of cultivating
moral purity (Deut. 10:16), (5) to preach to them the
gospel of a righteousness by faith (Rom. 4:11), (6) to
suggest the idea of a holy or spiritual seed of Abram (Rom.
2:29) and (7) to foreshadow the Christian rite of baptism
(Col. 2:11, 12).”
There can hardly be any disagreement about the first
six of the ccuses’y of fleshly circumcision listed above. The
one exception is the last-named. One of the errors that
has caused untold confusion in Christian teaching and
practice is this oft-recurring claim that fleshly circumcision
of the Old Covenant was the type of which baptism
is the antitype under the New Covenant. There is
no Scripture warrant for this view.
There are many “clergymen” who still cling to the
threadbare argument that baptism as “spiritual circumcision”
under the New Covenant has taken the place of
fleshly circumcision, the seal of the Old Covenant; hence,
they contend, that as infants were inducted into the Old
283

Covenapt: by fleshly .circumcision ; (Gcp 17:9-14,. cf. Jer.
31.:31-34, Heb.’8), so infants are $0 be inducted, into the:
New .Covenant by ccbaptismyy (as a,--patter pf fadct, by
sprinkling), which, according to the theory has “taken
the place ofyy the old fleshly circumcls
are those of making baptism the seal of ,t
~ ,
and identifying baptism with spiritual 1 .( &cumf-Zsion:,
A ~ - . We
reply to this argument as follows: ‘ I_ 1: ’ + - - 7 . . La 1
1. Baptism is not a seal. In Ne,w, -T.estament,
8 teaching
.
there is not the slightest intimati at I ..bapbtisw
, ,
~ is the
seal of anything. On the contra is. expressly stated
that the seal of the New Covenant is,,tGe. ibdwelling .Holy
Spirit (2 Cor, 1:22; Eph. 1:13-14, 4:36:;:Rom.
1 .-_ 5:!; 1 Cor.
3:16-17, 6:19-20; Rom. 8:14-17, etc.>l*, ;True? the reception
of the Holy Spirit by the repentaqt believer is connected
in Scripture with baptism; however; it is not baptism.
It is the Holy Spirit who seals us as members of
the Covenant (Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5). If someone
should ask, How can we know that the baptized
believer is sealed by the Spirit? or, What is the certain
proof? The answer is obvious, namely, the principle enunciated
by Jesus Himself, “each tree is kno
fruit” (Luke 6:43-45), or “by their fruits ye shall know
them” (Matt. 7:16-23). The baptized believer who is
truly sealed by the Spirit will bring forth in his life the
fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-2?; Jas. 1:22-27, 2:14-26;
Matt. 7:ll-27, 2?:31-46).
2. Baptism is not spiritual circumcision.
If baptism
under the New Covenant has “taken the place ofyy fleshly
circumcision of the Old Covenant, it follows that, since
only male infants received fleshly circumcision under the
Old (and that “when eight days old,” Gen. 17:12), so
only male .infants can be proper subjects for what the
“pedobaptists” call “baptism” under the New Covenant.
As stated above, there is such a thing as “spiritual circum-
284

THE OLD COVENANT
cision” (Rom. 2:28-29, Phil. 3:3, 2 Cor. 3:2-6, Col. 2:9-
13), a “circumcision fiot made with hands.” Moreover;
as the fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant was designed
to be a type of spiritual circumcision under the
New, and hence, that as the circumcision ordained under
the Old Covenant was a seal stamped on the flesh, so the
circumcision ordained in the New Covenant must be a
seal stamped upon the i ~~ind or spirit, the inner man.
3. Stiritual circdmcisioiz consists in the cuttiizg offfrom
the interior inail-of the body of the guilt of si??..
Rom. 6:6--“0ur old man was crucified with him, that
the body of sin might be done away” (1) This is done
by the Spirit of God at the time of His entrance into the
human heart to indwell and to sanctify it: although this
occurs in connection with the penitent believer’s baptism
into Christ, still it is not baptism itself. (Acts 2:38; Gal.
3:2, 5:16-26; John 3:3-8, Tit. 3:4-7, etc.). The remedy
for sin is the blood of Christ, and the place divinely appointed
for the repentant believer to meet the efficacy of
this blood is the grave of water (1 John 1:7, Rom. 6:l-10,
John 3:l-8, Col. 2:9-12): here divine grace and human
faith meet, and the pardon, remission, justification, etc.,
takes place in the Mind of God; the entrance of the Holy
Spirit at the same time cuts off the body of the guilt of
past sin: this guilt will be put away as far as the east is
from the west (Psa. 103:ll-12, Rom. 6:6, Col. 2:9-12).
(2) The Spirit of God, as He continues to indwell and
to possess the heart of the true Christian as the Agent of
the latter’s sanctification, is the seal of his participation in
the privileges and responsibilities of the New Covenant,
and is at the same time the earmst or pledge of his eternal
inheritance, the rest that remaineth for the people of God
(1 Pet. 1:3-5, Eph. 1:13-14; Acts 20:32, 26:18; Rom,
8:18-23; Col. 1:lZ; 2 Cor, 1:22, 5:j; Heb. 4:9, 9:15,
11:13-16, 10:28-31; Rom. 5:5, 14:17; 1 Thess. 5:19).
285

GENES1
a word, spiritual circumthion is, in its essential
nature, identical with regeneratio’n;11 the process which be-
gins ,with the reception of Christ4 intol
by faith (Gal. 4:19, Col. 1:27; Rom.
Pet. 1:22-25, Jas. 1:18), and is coqsummated in.the peni-
tent believer’s birth from the wa,te-r,.of. his final,, act of
“primary obedience” (conversion) :. *John 3.: 37,
3:5, Eph. 5:27-27; Acts 2:38, 22:,L6
Thus it will be seen that baptism as,t
of the process variously designated, 1 ,
L
version, adoption, justification, regeneration, etc., (i.e., the
consummating act on the human side) has a
it the entrance of the Spirit int
heart, to possess and to mould his
must be emphasized here that on1
repent are proper subjects for Chrisiian baptism. Mhat is
commonly designated change of heidrt .mist precede bap-
tism (Luke 13:3, 1 Cor. 7:10, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:29-34;
Rom. 10:9-10, Luke 24:46-47). One who does not have
this change of heart will go down into the baptistry a dry
sinner and come up a wet sinner (Rom. 6: 17). However,
it is the indwelling Spirit, and not baptism, that is the seal
of the Christian, stamping him as set apart for fiarticipq-
tion in the blessings and responsibilities of the New Cwe-
nant. And it is the operation by the Spirit of excising the
body of the guilt of sin, at His entrance into the newly-
made saint’s interior lif e-and not baptism-hich is desig-
nated in Scripture spiritual circumcision. Baptism md
spiritual circumcision are associated in God’s plan, but thy
are noli identical (Col. 2:9-14). As a matter of fact, to
identify baptism per se with spiritual circumcision is to
vest the ordinance, that is to say, the water itself, with
magical properties. Certainly, to present infants-or any-
ane*’incapable of faith-for such a rite as what is generally
called. Ynfant baptism” (sprinkling, pouring) is not only
286

I
THE OLD COVENANT
unscriptural-it is antiscriptural. If there is any efficacy
/in such an act, obviously it cannot be in the state of the
child’s heart, but would have to be in the water: this
would be sheer magic, There is no warrant in the New
Testament for such an esoteric concept. Moreover, the
attitude of the parents in such a practice cannot in any
way affect‘the child’s salvation. There is no such thing
in Scripture as salvatioiz by proxy.
But, someone may be asking, what about the salvation
of infants? We answer as follows: (1) According to
Scripture teaching, sin is a personal act, and responsibility
for the guilt of sin is personal (Ezek. 18:19-20: here we
have the doctrine of the guilt of sin, as distinguished from
that of the coiiseq~eii~es of sin as stated in Exo. 2O:l-17;
Prov. 24:12, Matt. 16:27, Rom. 2:6, 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor.
J:lO, 1l:lJ; Eph. 6:8, Col. 3:25; Rev. 2:23, 20:12, 22:12).
As there is no such thing as salvation by proxy, so there is
no such thing as sinning by proxy. “Original sin,’’ in the
sense of original guilt, is just another fabrication of the
theological mentality. True it is that the human race is
suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin (of which the
most frustrating is physical death, Gen. 3:17-19, Heb.
9:27) and of the sins of the fathers, but there is no evidence
from Scripture, experience or common sense that
any person will be held guilty before God for what Adam
did or what his own forebears have done. Such a notion
impugns the justice and goodness of the Heavenly Father.
All this “theological groundwork” for the practice of
what is called “infant baptism” (true infant baptism would
be infant immersion) thus turns out to be nothing more
than a house of cards. The infant does not sin for the
simple reason that it cam not sin; hence, said Jesus, “to
such belongeth the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:14).
(2) Whatever the human race lost through the disobedience
2 87

GENESIS- -1
of the First Adam, it has regained$. through the obedience of.,
the’second Adam (Rom. 5:19, 1 *Cor. 15:45-49), regained;
unconditionally for the innoceht and e *irresponsible, but
regained conditionally for all accouhtable human beings,
that is, on the terms and conditi
Testament of our Lord Jesus Chris
kingdom of heaven,” Matt. 16:
Lord atoned for the innocent
sacrifice of Himself on the Cro
“taketh away the sin of the w
5:7). The infant is in need of sa
quences of sin only; it is in need o
the body, that is, salvation from mortality ’itself (Rom.
8:22-23, 2 Cor. 5:4). The spiritual.‘progression for accountable
persons is from the Kingdom of Nature, through
the Kingdom of Grace (John 3 : 1-8), into the Kingdom of
Glory (Rev. 20:ll-14, 22:1-5). The spiritual progression
for those who die in infancy, we may surely believe, is
directly from the Kingdom of Nature, by means of the
Covering of Grace, our Lord’s Vicarious Sacrifice, into the
Kingdom of Glory (Rom. 8:29, 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; Col.
1:18-23, Heb. 12:23).
(3) Infant sprinkling, pouring, christening, etc., reverses
the order specified in the Great commission (Matt.
28: 18-20). The order demanded by the Commission is (a)
go, (b) make disciples, that is, learners, believers; (c)
baptize those who have been made discciples, believers, by
the preaching of the facts, commands, and promises of the
Gospel; (d) izurtzsre those who have been baptized into
Christ and have the right to wear the name Christian, that
is, nurture them in the most holy faith, the Spiritual Life.
The pedobaptist order is (a) go, (b) and then
(c) .teach, or make disciples; in a word, ccchristenyy them
ill infancy and require “confirmation” at about the age of
288

THE OLD COVENANT
twelve, Those who pradtice this sequence are simply bringing
over into the New Testament the sequence prescribed
in the Old Testament. The Old Abrahamic Covenant took
in those born in Abraham’s house and those heathen servants
bought with his money, all of whom had to be taught
to k??ow Jehovah after their induction into the Covenant
by fleshly circumcision. But God states explicitly, with
respect to the promised New Covenant, that “they shall
teach no more, every man his neighbor, and every man
his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for they shall all k~zow
me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,”
etc. The New Covenant is not a covenant of flesh, but
a covenant of faith. Those who would enter the New
Covenant must, as Jesus states expressly, be “born anew,”
literally “born from above,’’ “born of water and the
Spirit,” “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1 : 12-1 3, 3 : 3-
5 ) . God’s law is put in their inward parts, written in
their hearts, in order for them to be born again, and so to
enter the Covenant. (Cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-7). Sufffice it to
say that there can be no spiritual birth without a prior
spiritual begetting, and there can be no spiritual begetting
without faith. Infant christening, “baptism,” sprinkling,
pouring, etc., ignores this teaching in toto; not only
ignores it, but contradicts it in every particular. Infant
christening, infant “baptism,” infant affusion, infant aspersion,
infant dedication, infant church membership, etc.,
not one of these things, nor all of them together, can be
substituted, in the Gospel Plan of Salvation, for spiritual
birth (regeneration). These are all forms of so-called
cc
baptismal regeneration,” a dogma which the present writer
rejects flatly. Baktisiiz is ail act of faith, or it is nothing.
My personal conviction is that the term kiwgdo7n (literally,
reign) in Scripture is more comprehensive than the term
church, in that it takes in all who, in the very nature of
289

8 1 ’
GENESIS ‘
the case, cannot belong to the churck; that is, infants and
irresponsibles generally, and in all prpbability the elect of
prior Dispensations. (Cf. Luke 17:21, Mark 10:24, Matt.
18:3, Mark 10:15, Luke 18:l
11:4, 5, 7, 8-16, etc.)
(4) Other objections to t
following the Old Covenant pat
contradicts New Testament teac
of baptism (1 Pet. 3:21, Rom.
teaching of the New Testament
is more than a physical act. It t
unconverted, unregenerated persons;
would make of their Christianity
observances. It ignores altogether
of choice. Finally, it tends to oblitetate the distinction be-
tween the church and the world, and the distinction be-
tween church and state as well. How many professing
“Christian” parents use the practice of christening pretty
largely for the credentials by which birth certification can
be established? Moreover, so-called “infant dedication” is
misleading: the popular tendency, so great is the general
ignorance of the Bible, is to identify it with infant sprinkl-
ing. If the act is simply a dedication, why use water in
the observance of it?
To summarize: the equating of Christian baptism with
spiritual circumcision is one 6f the most egregious fallacies
that has ever been perpetrated on the Christian world. We
repeat that baptism is an act of faith, “the appeal of a good
conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21)-0r it is nothing.
Spiritual circumcision is the excision of the body of the
guilt of sin by the entrance of the Spirit into the human
heart to take possession of it and thus to make it, little
rtaker of the divine nature and meet for the
the saints in light (2 Pet. 1:4, Col. 1:12,
Heb. 9:ll).
290

THE OLD COVENANT
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART THIRTY
1. Explain how the content of ch. 17 is an enlargement
of the Abrahamic Covenant. Explain how it is more
inclusive.
2. How old was Abraham at the time when all the
details of the Covenant were finally made known to
him?
3, By what name did God reveal Himself to Abraham
here? What does this name mean?
4. What is the significance of a new name in Scripture?
’ 5. What changes were made at this time in the names of
Abram and Sarai? What did the changes signify?
6. Show how these changes served to elevate the moral
and spiritual status of Abram and Sarai.
7. What did the terms “everlasting” and “forever”
signify with reference to the Covenant?
8. What happened to the Abrahamic Covenant at Sinai?
At Calvary?
9. What two progenies (seeds) of Abraham are included
in these promises?
10. Explain how each of these promises had a twofold
fulfillment (double reference) ,
11. What was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant?
12, Give the two Greek words for “covenant” and explain
the meaning of each, Which word is used in
the New Testament?
13. How is a covenant to be distinguished from a contract?
14. Why was it necessary for God to specify the details
of the Covenant?
15. List these details.
16. How are females dealt with in the details of the
Covenant ?
29 1

17. What was the con the terms of .the
Old Covenant and
later that of the nation?
f the family, and
18. Why were the details of the Covenant hot revealed
to Abraham at first?
19. Discuss briefly the history of
20. Why cannot circumcision h
of edurance?
21. Why cannot circumcision h
grounds?
22. Why do we object to th
originated to increase procreative powers?
23. Why do we reject the notion that it originated for
the purpose of getting rid of emanation from physical
secretion connected with the physiology of the foreskin?
24. Why can we not accept the view that circumcision
originated as a phase of phallic worship?
25. Why is it unlikely that it was originally af the nature
of a sacrifice to deity?
2 6. Why is it unlikely that it persisted as an attenuated
survival of human sacrifice?
27. Why do we reject the view that circumcision was in
some manner related to the cult of reincarnation?
28. Can it be proved that the spread of Circumcision
among ancient peoples was in any way connected with
human sacrifice?
29. On what ground does Lange affirm that circumcision
did not come to Abraham as a custom of his aricestors?
3 0. What was its special significance under patriarchal
law?
31. How does Lange explain its symbolic significance?
e status of females to be explained under the
circumcision?
ific requirement proves that circumcision
was not a puberty rite?
29 2
:

THE OLD COVENANT
3 4. Explain the customs of sub-incision, introcision, and
infibulation, as practiced by primitives? Do we find
any of these practices in the history of the Israelites?
What does all this prove with regard to the purity of
Hebrew monotheism?
3 5. What Old Testament incident shows that circurncision
was not to be treated lightly by the Children
of Israel? Explain.
3 6. What reasons are suggested for the provision that
circumcision of males should take place on the eighth
day after birth?
37. What provision shows us that the blessings of the
Covenant were to be extended to others as well as
those born in Abraham’s household? To what others
were these blessings extended?
3 8. What was the penalty for disobedience to the law of
circumcision? Did this penalty include anything
beyond excommunication from the commonwealth?
39. What was the design of the Covenant-Sign?
was it related to the Messianic hope?
How
40. Who was now specified to become the Covenant-Heir?
What significance in the change of Sarai’s name to
Sarah?
41. What are the various explanations of Abraham’s
“laughter” on receiving the promise of Isaac’s birth?
42. What does Cornfeld say about this? How does
Murphy explain it? Speiser? Leupold? How do you
explain it?
43. Did Abraham’s laughter differ from that of Sarah
later? Explain.
44. Can we say that Abraham “was a man of faith who
had moments of doubt”? Can we say the same of
ourselves?
4J. How does God reply to Abraham’s intercession for
Ishmael?
293

GENESIS I-’
46. What was Abraham’s response’”t!o‘the law of
cision? How old was he at the‘+ime? How old. was
Ishmael?
47. State the successive steps in t
of the Covenant.
48, When and where was the
larged into a national Covenant? ”
49. Where in the Old Testame
to “circumcision of the heart”?
SO. What is the fundamental differeixe be
Covenant and the New?
1. When and where was the 01
the New Covenant ratified?
SZ. Who was the mediator of
mediator of the New?
13. Is the New Covenant an extension of the Old, or is
it strictly a New Covenant? Explain.
54. What was made the basis of membership in the Old
Covenant and what is it in the New?
55. Why do we say that the Old Covenant was local?
How does the New Covenant differ on this point?
56. What did fleshly circumcision of the Old Covenant
point forward to in the New?
S7. What is meant by spiritual circumcision? What is it,
according to New Testament teaching?
5 8. Explain the fallacy of identifying Christian baptism
and spiritual circumcision.
59. What did the Old Covenant include as to membership?
What does the New Covenant include?
60. How is the New Covenant a better covenant “enacted
upon better promises”?
61. Are the Ten Commandments a part of the Gospel?
’ Ekplain.
62. Which of the Commandments are morally binding
upon Christians, and why?
63. Which one is not binding upon Christians? Explain.
294

,
64,
65.
66,
67.
68.
69,
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
1 75.
I
76.
77.
78,
THE OLD COVENANT
Why can we not be saved today as the penitent thief
on the Cross was saved?
What is the primary function of law in general?
Does the Law have the power to regenerate and
sanctify men?
Can one keep the Ten Commandments and still not
be a Christian? It it possible for any person to keep
them perfectly?
Explain the distinction between the Old Covenant as
a Covenant of Law and the New Covenant as a Covenant
of Grace.
Does the New Testament teach that baptism is a seal
of anything? Explain.
What are the necessary conditions to baptism? What
is meant by a “change of heart”?
Is it possible Scripturally to baptize one who is not old
enough to believe?
In what way did our Lord provide for the salvation
of the innocent and the irresponsible.
Distinguish the import of Exo. 20:1-17 and Ezek,
18:19-20.
Do the Scriptures teach that we inherit the guilf of
the sins committed by our ancestors or of that committed
by Adam? Explain.
Is the dogma of “original sin” warranted by Scripture
teaching?
Explain the statement that the innocent (infants)
need to be redeemed only from the consequeiices of
sin.
Explain how and why so-called “infant baptism” is
unscriptural?
Why do we affirm that so called “infant baptism” is
essentially a form of magic?
What according to the New Testament is the necessary
motivation for baptism?
29

79 I
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
GENESIS
Show how “infant baptism” reverses the order laid
down in the Great Commission. =’
In what sense‘ is “infant ’baptys
good conscience” toward God? ;
Explain how “infant christeni
etc. obliterates the distinction b;e
the world and between church Sn
In what sense is the Kingdom
than the Church?
What is the spiritual progressioj’
i, I I
sons?
What is it for the innoee
What fundamental error is ifiablved;, iil ’ the peda-
baptist procedure with respect.: to;membership in the
new Covenant? *. j.
Where is the promise of the New.%ovaiant found in
the Old Testament? Explain how the language of this
divine promise indicates the distinctions between the
Covenants.
296

I
1
PART THIRTY-ONE
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
THE PATKTARCH AS INTERCESSOR
Genesis, 1 8 : 1-3 3
1. Abraham as the Gracious Host (18:l-8)
I ,*
1 And Jehovah .appeared unto him by the oaks of
Mamre, as he sat in,.4he tent door in the heat of the day;
2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men
stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran tb
meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the
earth, 3 avtd said, My lord, if now I have found favor iiz
thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 let now a little water be fetched, and wash your feet,
and rest yourselves ulzder the tree: 5 and I will fetch a
morsel of bread, and strengthen ye your heart; after that
ye shall pass on: ‘forasnzuch as ye are come to your servant.
And they said, So do, as thou bast said. 6 And Ahaham
hasteized into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready
quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make
cakes. 7 And Abraham ran, unto the herd, and fetched
a calf tender and good, and gave it unto the servant; and
he hasted to dress it‘ 8 And he took butter, and milk, and
the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and
he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
( 1 ) Abraham and His Mysterious Visitors.
Under the oaks (terebinths) at Mamre, not far from
’ what later became the city of Hebron, the place where
the patriarch had formerly pitched his tent (Gen. 13 : 18) ,
we now see hiin sitting in the opening of his tent (a fold
of which was fastened to a post near by to admit any
breeze that might be stirring) “in the heat of the day,”
that is, at noontide. (Cf. 1 Sam. 11:11, the cool of the
day; Gen. 3:8, here the Hebrew reads the “wind” of the
day: these terms refer to the eventide). Among Orientals
297

18:l-33 GENESIS - 1. 2
noon hour is the time of rest (
inner (Gen. 43 : 16, 2j). In this
Sol. 1:7) and of
ce Abraham had
probably dined and was resting aft dinner, as indicated
by the fact that when the visitors arrived special
preparations were begun for their, entertainment. Who
were these mysterious visitors? Whe st perceived by
the patriarch he took them to be but on closer
scrutiny (when he suw them, that is3 not with physical
with mental vision) he recognized them as divl’ne bei
as evidenced by the fact that he “bowed himself to the
earth, and said, my Lord,” etc. This ression. indicates
the complete prostration of the body first falling on
the knees and then inclining the head forward until it
touches the ground. This was a m e of salutation practised
by Orientals toward superiors erally. Certainly the
language in which Abraham immediately addressed one of
the three men leads to the conclusion that he had already
recognized one of them as Yahwe Himself or as the Angel
of Yahwe. Obviously the divine character of the three
was fully disclosed by the fact of their supernatural
knowledge of Sarah‘s thoughts (vv. 12-15). Lange
(CDHCG, 43 3) : “Abraham instantly recognizes among
the three the one whom he addresses as the Lord in a
religious sense, who afterward appears as Jehovah, and was
clearly distinguished from the accompanying angels, ch.
19: 1.” “In its definitive form this ‘Yahwistic’ narrative
recounts an apparition of Yahweh (vv. 1, 3, 13, 17-22)
accompanied by two ‘men’ who, according to 19:1, are
angels. . . . In these three, to whom Abraham addressed
a single act of homage, many of the Fathers saw a foreshadowing
of the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine that
was revealed only l’n the N.T.” (JB, 33). It is difficult,
language of the text here, to think of this as an
apparition: there were red persons, not just ghosts or
phantoms, We believe Skinner is correct in describing
the incident as a theophuny. Speiser (ABG, 129): “At
298

i
ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
this stage (v. 3) Abraham is as yet unaware of the true
identity of his visitors, so that he would not address any
of them as God; and lie cannot mean all three, because
the rest of the verse contains three unambiguous singulars.
. . . Later on, in vss. 27, 32-34, the divine appellation is in
order, because by then it is clear that Abraham’s guests
are out of the ordinary, The present pointing was probably
influenced by the explicit mention of Yahweh in vs.
1. But this is the author’s aside to the reader who is thus
prepared at the outset for the surprise that is in store for
Abraham.” (The pointing here, says this writer, is that
which ‘(is applied to YHWH in the received text”). For
a contrary view (to be expected, of course, from the general
critical approach of the entire work), see IBG, 617:
“The statement that he bowed himself to the earth does
not mean that he recognized his visitors as divine beings.
The act was an expression of the self -depreciating courtesy
of the Orient (cf. 23:7, 1 Sam. 24:8, 2 Sam. 14:4, 22;
1 IG. 1:3 1) .” Murphy (MG, 3 15) : “These men in some
way represented God: for the Lord on this occasion appeared
unto Abraham (v. 1). The number is in this
respect notable. Abraham addresses himself first to one
person (v. 3) , then to more than one (v. 4, 7). It is
stated that ‘they said, So do (v. I), they did eat (v. 8),
they said unto him, Where is Sarah, thy wife?’ (v. 9).
Then the singular number is resumed in the phrase and he
said (v. lo), and at length, ‘The Lord said unto Abraham’
(v. 13), and then, ‘and he said’ (v. 15). Then we are
told ‘the men rose up, and Abraham went with them’ (v.
16). Then we have ‘The Lord said’ twice (v. 17, 20).
And lastly, it is said (v. 22) ‘the men turned their faces
and went toward Sodom, and Abraham was yet standing
before the Lord.’ From this it appears that of the three
men, one, at all events, was the Lord, who, when the other
two went toward Sodom, remained with Abraham while he
made his intercession for Sodom, and afterward he also
299

18: 1-33 GENESIS
went his way. The other two will come before us again
in the next chapter. Meanwhile we have here the first
explicit instance of the Lord appearing as man to man, and
holding familiar intercourse with him.” “The person to
whom Abraham addressed himself, and who was at least
the chief speaker, was the Son of God and Judge of the
world: cf. v. 25 with John 5:22” (SIBG, p. 241). Was
the Lord in this instance a pre-incarnate manifestation of
the Eternal Logos? Was this another epiphany of the
Angel of Jehovah, the Logos whose goings forth have been
“from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2). Surely, this
interpretation is in greater accord with Bible teaching gs u
whole than any of the other views suggested!
(23 Abrahum the Host. We have here a realistic
picture of the ancient ritual of hospitality. The scene is
one, we are told, which may be seen in any Bedouin camp
even at the present day. The hospitality of the Easterner,
and even that of the Arab has often been remarked by
travelers: “the virtue of hospitality is one of the great
redeeming virtues in the character of the Bedouins.”
Whitelaw (PCG, 241) : ‘Whenever our path led us near
an. encampment, as was frequently the case, we always
found some active sheikh or venerable patriarch sitting ‘in
his tent door,’ and as soon as we were within hail we heard
the earnest words of welcome and invitation which the
Old Testament Scriptures had rendered long ago familiar
to us: ‘Stay, my lord, stay. Pass not on till thou hast
eaten bread, and rested under thy servant’s tent. Alight
and remain until thy* servants kill a kid and prepare a
feast”’ (qtioted from’ Porter’s Great Cities of Bashan, p.
326): Since this was-the hottest and drowsiest time of the
day, it is indeed likely that Abraham at first glance recog-
nized, I the strangers. only‘ ad three “men” approaching his
tent; and received them with all the courtesies of a generous,
high-minded, and self -respecting chieftain. Skinner (PCG,
299) : “The description ‘presents a perfect picture of the
300

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
manner in which a modern Bedawee sheikh receives travelers
arriving at his encampment, He immediately orders
his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or
some other animal, and dresses it in haste; and, bringing
milk and any other provisions that he may have at hand,
with the bread and meat that he has dressed, sets them
before his guest: if they are persons of high rank he also
stands by them while they eat”’ (quoted from E. W. Lane,
Maianers and Custom of’ the Modern Egyptiaiis, 7th ed.
1860). It will be noted that after the preliminary greetings
the first act of the ritual of hospitality was the serving
of the visitors with water for washing their feet. As
people in those countries went barefoot, or with sandals,
because of the heat, washing the feet after traveling was a
common and needful practice (cf. @en. 19:2, 24:32; Judg.
19:21, 2 Sam. 11:8; 1 Tim. 7:10, Luke 7:44). Note v. 4,
“ye.rt yaurselves under the tree,” that is, recline by resting
on the elbow. V. 8-Abraham stood by them as their
servant, to give them what they needed (Neh. 12:44, Gal.
5:13, Luke 14:8). “Here, therefore, as often in Genesis,
one recognizes that the framework of a story belongs to a
far-off time. Yet there are values in it which do not disi
appear. There is the opening picture of the ^hos;itality of
Abraham. From the door of his tent”he sees three figures
coming toward him through the’ heat of the day-figures
whom
I - / I he hag no reason to believe are other than ordinary
men who have chanced to come his *way. Instantly he
goes out to meet them and to offer thew his utmost
hospitality; and the men, thus welcomed, bring to Abraham
a reward of which he had not dr.eamed. It ’was not
the last time that a generous spirit has found that. he has
‘entertained angels unawares’ (Heb, 13 :2) . . When anyone
receives another human being with warmhearted kindness
he may be nearer than he knows to a divine experience.
Although it is a long way from Genesis to the Gospels, in
301

18: 1-33 GENESIS
the story of Abraham there is at least a foregleam of the
promise of Christ, Matt. 2$:40” (IBG, 617). In the
words of Lowell, The Vision of Sir Launfal:
“The gift without the giver is bare;
Who gives himself with his alms feeds three-
Himself, his hungering neighbor, and me.”
(Cf. Exo. 23:9, Lev. 24:22; Deut 10:18, 27:19; Matt.
22:1-10 25:34; Luke 14:12, Rom. 12:13, 16:l; 1 Tim. 3:2,
5:lO: Heb. 13:2, 1 Pet. 4:9). Leupold (EG, $39): “The
eating of the three heavenly guests--‘and they ate’-is
marvelous indeed. We must declare this eating to have
been real but rather by way of accomodation than of neces-
sity. Augustine’s word still stands as a classic explanation:
‘That He ate, was rather of power than of necessity. The
earth absorbs water by drinking it in. Different is the
mode of absorption by the glowing day of the sun. The
one is because of need; the other by virtue of power.’
The eating on the part of the glorified Christ after the
resurrection serves as an explaiiatory parallel to this inci-
dent. The friendliest and most intimate contacts among
the sons of men are oft made over a friendly meal.” (Cf.
Luke 24:36-43, Acts 10:41). “At first, Abraham sees
his guests as mere human beings, and welcomes them
warmly; their superhuman character is only gradually re-
vealed (vs. 2, 9, 13, 14)” (JB, 33). ,
2. Sarah’s Lazighter (1 8 :9-15).
Oriental cpurtesy no doubt in those early days forbade
to all, except the most intimate friends, inquiry about a
wife. The fact that these visitors did inquire about Sarah
indicates their special authority to do so. It is now dis-
closed that their visit is concerned vitally with an ex-
perience that is relatively soon, let us say, to befall her.
Moreover, Sarah’s faith needs to be raised to the proper
degree to do justice to the experience. “Behold, in the
3 02

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
tent” is the patriarch’s reply to his visitor’s pointed ques-
tion, “Where is Sarah thy wife?” The “behold” here
amounts to little more than “there inside the tent.”
9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife?
And he said, Behold, in the tent. IO And he said, 1 will
certainly return unto thee when the season cometh rouizd:
and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard
in the tent door, which was behind him. 11 Now Abra-
ham and Sarah were old, aiid well stricken in age; it had
ceased to be with Sarah after the iizaii,iiey of w‘oimw. 12
Ayzd Sarah laughed witJin herself, saying Af ter 1 ani,
waxed old shall 1 have pleasuw, .VZ~I lord being old also?
13 Aizd Jehovah said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah
laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old?
14 Is anything too hard for Jehovah? At the set time I
will return unto thee, when the season conzeth rou.nd, and
Sarah shall have a son. 15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I
laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but
thou didst laugh.
’Without circumlocution the visitor, the One out-
standing among the three, assumes control of the conversa-
tion and delivers the promise He has come to give, “Sarah
shall have a son.” “When the season cometh round,” that
is, at the time determined, we may well suppose, mturally:
“according to the time of that which is born” or nine
months after conception. Of course, we do not know how
much time had elapsed since the earlier announcement to
Abraham (17: 16-19, 21 :2). Sarah, standing behind the
tent door, “was hearing,” that is, she was listeiziizg: no
doubt with the well-known female curiosity. So Sarah
laughed to herself: not a laugh of derision: it evidently
bore no trace of scoffing. Rather it was the laugh of
incredulousness, and hence to a degree a form of unbelief.
To the carnal thinking of Sarah, sexual delight could not
be expected naturally at the age to which Abraham and
303

18: 1-3 3 GENESIS
she had both attained: it should be noted that she did not
put the matter very delicately (v. 12). There is nothing
equivocal where Sarah is concerned. “She is depicted as
down-to-earth to a fault, with her curiosity, her impulsiveness,
and her feeble attempt at deception” (Speiser, ABG,
131). A remarkable evidence of divine insight follows:
the Speaker knows that Sarah has laughed within herself,
although He has neither seen nor heard her. Whitelaw
(PCG, 242): V. 13--“And the Lord said unto Abraham,
Wberef ore did Sarah laugh?-a question which must have
convinced Abraham of the Speaker’s omniscience. Not
only had He heard the silent, inaudible, inward cachinnation
of Sarah’s spirit, but he knew the tenor of her thoughts
and the purport of her dubitations.” Sarah herself is
startled by this unexpected exposure of her secret thoughts
into actual fear of these visitors, especially of the Principal
Guest who has taken over the course of the conversation
to reiterate the promise of the covenant-heir. Fear threw
her into confusion and engendered the deception to which
she resorted (v. lr). “The laughter is not from Sarah’s
lgck? of faith: Sarah does*not yet know who her Guest is;
is frightened” (JB, 35). As to
nly Visitor, verse 14 alone might
have left the question ,unresolved, but u. 13 bad identified
the Speaker beforehahid.‘ ’ ’ “With a directness similar to
that which he employed in dealing with the fi
in the garden, not contending in a multiplicit
but solemnly “ announcirig that what she said was false.
Sarah was an evidence of her conviction;
her subsequent conception was a proof of her repentance
and forgiyeness”+ (PCG, ,242). “Sarah, like Abraham,
ds of doubt and disbelief.
It was the
ed, God to pose the question,
too hard for the Lord? (v. 13). God who
continues faithful despite the sin of unbelief
e. In ’ 17: 15 the same Sarai, meaning “conten-
3 04

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 1 8 : 1-3 3
tious’ or ‘princely,’ was changed to Sarah which means
‘princess”’ (HSB, 30). The J B Version makes these
verses most meaningful: “SO Sarah laughed to herself,
thinking, ‘Now that I am past the age of child-bearing,
and my husband is an old man, is pleasure to come my
way again?’ But Yahweh asked Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah
laugh and say, am I really going to have a child now that
I am old? Is anything too wonderful for Yahweh? At
the same time next year I shall visit you again and Sarah
will have a son.’ ‘I did not laugh,’ Sarah said, lying because
she was afraid. But he replied, ‘Oh yes, you did laugh.’”
The second half of the chapter begins at this point
(v. 16). It tells us what transpired at Mamre after Abra-
ham’s guests had been escorted along the road for a short
distance. It is not until 19:l that the two “men” are
~pecifically identified as angels. Noting the distinction
clearly made in vv. 16-17 and v. 22, between the two
and the third (the Principal Speaker) who is specifically
designated Jehovah, it seems obvious that this personage
was Jehovah Himself, or more likely, the Angel of Jehovah,
i.e., the pre-incarnate Logos who appears so frequently in
the Old Testament.
3. Abraham the Intercessor ( 1 8 : 1 6-3 3 ) .
16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked
toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring
them on the way. 17 And Jehovah said, Shall I hide from
Abraham that which I do; 18 seeing that Abrahanz shall
surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the na-
tions of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have
known him, to the eiid that he may command his children
and his household after him, that they may keep the way
of Jehovah, to do righteousness aiid justice; to the end that
Jehovah nwy briizg up011 Abrahain that which he hath
spoken of him. 20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of
305

18:1-33 GENESIS
Sodm and Gmorrah is great, and because their sin is
very grievow; 21 I will go down now, and see whether
they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which
is erne unto me; and if not, I will know.
22 And the men turned from thence, and went toward
Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before Jehovah. 23 And
Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou consume the
righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there are
fifty righteozbs within the city: wilt thou consullze and
not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay
the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should
be as the wicked; that be far from thee: shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right? 26 And Jehovah said, If
I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then 1
will spare all the place for their sake. 27 And Abraham
answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to
speak unto the Lord who am but dust and ashes: 23 per-
adventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous; wilt
thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said,
I will not destroy it, if I find there forty and five. 29
And be spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure
there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not
do it for the forty’s sake. 30 And he said, Oh let not the
Lord be angry, and I will speak: peradventure there shall
thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I
find thirty there. 31 And he said, Behold now, I hme
taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: peradventure there
shall be twenty found there. And he said I will not destroy
it for the twenty’s sake.. 32 And he said, Ob let not the
Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: per-
adventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will
izot destroy it for the ten’s sake. 33 And Jehovah went
his way, as soon as he bad left off cmmuning with Abra-
ham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
306

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
(1) The Amouncement of Iwpending Doom to be
visited on Sodom and Gomorrah. V. 16-The two “men”
as distinguished from Yahweh who stays with Abraham.
In 19:l we shall be told that they were angels. Vv. 17-
21 : “By God’s iizquiriiig into things, is meant either his
bringing the persons concerned to a proper sense of their
condition and conduct (Gen, 3:9; 4:9, 10; 16:8; 1 Ki.
l9:9, 13; John 4:4, 9) ; or it marks the wisdom, patience,
and equity of his procedure (Gen. 11 : 5 , 7; Exo. 3 : 8, 3 3 : 5 j
Mic. 1 : 3 ) ” (SIBG, 241 ) . The Three have left Abraham’s
tent and turned their steps eastward toward Sodom. Abraham
accompanies them, and on the way one of them, in
whom he recognizes no other than the Aizgel of the Coueizaizt,
informs him of the real purport of this visit to the
cities where Lot had taken up his abode. The sin of these
cities is very great, they tell him, and their cup of iniquity
is now full; their inhabitants have wearied themselves with
wickedness, their licentiousness and iniquity call to Heaven
for a visible demonstration of Absolute Justice, and divine
judgment is now eueiz at the door. (Cf. Gen. 15 : 16).
(2) The Pereiiiiial Probleiiz of Absolute Justice.
Thus
informed of the impending judgment, the Friend of God
draws near, and with amazing boldness properly blended
with the deepest humility, pleads with the Almighty for
the guilty cities. Peradventure there might be found
therein at least fifty, or forty-five, or forty, or thirty, or
twenty, or even teii righteous souls, would the Lord of all
the earth spare them for ten’s sake? Thereupon he is
assured that if only ten righteous souls can be found the
cities will be spared. While he is thus pleading with God,
the two other angels have entered Sodom and are being
hospitably entertained by Lot. (Cf. Isa. 1:9, 1 Ki. 19:18,
Rom. 11:4, Jer. 18:5-lo), Sanders (HH, 35, 36): “The
importance of the message which came to Abraham con-
cerning his son is measured by the various ways in which
3 07

18:1-33 GENESIS
a promise of his future greatness had been made (1 3 : 14-17;
15:1; 17:6-8) and by the Divine purpose which was to be
fulfilled through him (18:19), But how characteristic of
the knightly chieftain that all thought of his own future
was supplanted by anxiety to save the few in Sodom who
were not hopelessly depraved.” Vv. 22, 23-“Abraham’s
standing before and drawing near to the Lord, imports his
bold and familiar intercession with him (1 Sam. 14:36,
Psa. 73:28; Heb. 7:19, 10:22; Jas. 4:8).” We have’here
what Cornfeld calls “a charming tradition” which “illus-
trates how Abraham, on intimate terms with the Lord,
dared to intercede with him, in the famous dialogue over
the problem of the. wicked people of Sodom and its few,
hypothetical righteous men” (AtD, 67). In the same
context is the incident of Sarah’s laughter [ 1 8 : 1 1-1 I 1 , says
Cornfeld, adding: “Sarah, who was eavesdropping on the
conversation (between Yahweh and Abraham) is reported
to have laughed heartily tQ herself, knowing that she had
reached the age when \his was physically impossible. Cer-
tainly this intimacy of men with gods and the reaction of
Abraham’s laughter [cf. 17:171, would
who had a different
. But comparative
ancient story in its true con-
cal texts, we must develap a feeling for a social phenomenon
the closeness of men to gods, and of the
od. In our society a man who claims to
have divine visitors is regarded as queer. That is why it
is not easy for n reader, who is not familiar
with the ancie d and literatures, to under-
stand that aspect of Hebrew society. For the ancient
Hebrews, the human and divine intermingled freely. The
early direct relationship between men and gods is common
3 0‘8

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
to all the epics: Ugarit, Mesopotamian, Greek and proto-
patriarchal, The simple personal contact between men and
God was gradually eliminated” (AD, pp. 66-67).
V. 25--“Shall iiot the Judge of all the earth do right”?
‘The perennial problem: Must the good suffer aloizg with,
aiid because of, the wicked? Is God to be understood as
Absolute Justice? What is the relation of Divine Love to
Divine Justice? Is Mercy compatible with Absolute
Justice? How does the principle of Equity come into this
problem? (Equity is defined, NWCD, s.u., as “any body
of legal doctrines and rules similarly developed to enlarge,
supplement, or override a system of law which has become
too narrow and rigid in its scope.”) Cf. v. 23--“Wilt thou
consume the righteous with the wicked?” Skinner (ICCG,
3 0 J ) : “This question strikes the keynote of the section-
a protest against the thought of an indiscriminate judg-
ment. , . , In OT, righteousness and clemency are closely
allied: there is more injustice in the death of a few innocent
persons than in the sparing of a guilty multitude. The
problem is, to what limits is the application of this principle
subject? . . . Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the
world would make piety impossible.” Whitelaw (PCG,
249) : “Assuming it as settled that the fair Pentapolis is
to be destroyed, Abraham practically asks, with a strange
mixture of humility and boldness, if Jehovah has con-
sidered that this will involve a sad commingling in one
gigantic overthrow of both the righteous and the wick.ed.”
“The patriarch appeals not to Jehovah’s covenanst grace,
but to his absolute judicial equity” (ibid., 250). Again,
Abraham regarding it as impossible that the entire popula-
tion of Sodom was involved in common ruin, kept modify-
ing the conditions of his appeal, believing that the city
might be spared, even if only a few should be proved to be
righteous. It was inconceivable to him that Jehovah would
do anything to tarnish His divine righteousness, such as
destroying even ten righteous persons in order to punish the
3 09

18: 1-33 GENESIS
entire population; that is, overwhelming the innocent in
order to bring retribution on the guilty. But Abraham did
not know how universal the corruption of Sodom really
was. The stark naked truth that stands out as the dark
background of this sordid story, the reality that vitia’ted
all pleas for clemency, was the fact that Sodom bud be-
come u vessel fit only for destruction. (It shwld be under-
stood that Sodom in this story is the name that describes
the complete moral corruption of all the Cities of, the
Plain.) It turns out later that Lot (but only by implica-
tion, two of his daughters) was the only person considered
relatively worthy of Divine clemency, and that partially
in response to the plea of Abraham, God’s Friend. What
a tremendous lesson here for men of all generations!
(SIBG, 241-242) : “Whenever the righteous are cut
off with the wicked in public calamities, it manifests them
to have been partakers with them in their sins (Amos 3:Z;
Rev., 18:4), and yet it is in everlasting mercy to their souls
(Isa. 57:1, Phil. 1:23) .” “The conviction of collective
responsibility was so strong in ancient Israel that the ques-
tion does not here arise whether the just may be spared in-
od will, in fact, save Lot and his family,
rinciple of individual responsibility is
. 2‘4:16, Jer, 31:29-30, Ezek. 14:12
ham, therefore, supposing that all
are to shake a common >destiny, asks that a few just men
may win pardon for’the many wicked. Yahweh’s answers
approve the pirt the &fits have to play in saving the world.
BQt Abraham’s bid for mercy does not venture below the
o Jer. 5:l and Ezek. 22:30,
even if only one just man
, in Isa. 53 it is the suffering
of the one servant that is to save the whole race, but this
prophecy was destined to remain unintelligible until it was
fulfilled in Christ” (JB, 35). (This comment, however,
is based on the critical view that Deuteronomy-rather,
310

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 1 8 : 1-3 3
the Deuteronomic Code-was a kind of pious fraud foisted
on the people to restore the power of the priesthood, as
late as the reign of Josiah (2 Ki. ch. 22). We do not
accept this view; rather, we find every reason to hold that
the entire Torah was the handiwork of Moses and that
Deuteronomy was what it purports to be, namely, addresses
delivered to Israel by Moses just before his death. Hence,
in Exo., ch. 20, we have the doctrine of the consequences
of sin, and in Ezek., cli. 18 we have the doctrine of the
guilt of sin. We see no reason for assuming that the
doctrine of individual justice was such a late development.
There is not now, there never was, in Biblical religion, any
notion of salvatioii by firoxy. C.C.). In Rom. 3:6 ff., it is
made clear that it would be injustice to condemn the inno-
cent, however few in comparison with the many sinners.)
V. 21-Leupold (EG, 547) : “‘I am going down’ in
this case involves a mere descent from the higher spot
where these words were spoken, to the low-lying cities,
In reality only the two angels (19: 1) go directly to the
city. The statements of the verse in no wise imply that
God’s omniscience is curtailed and that so He is under
necessity of securing information as men might. God
chooses this mode of procedure to make apparent the fact
that He, as Just Judge of all the earth, does nothing with-
out first being in full possession of all facts. The subse-
quent experience of the angels in Sodom displays the moraJ
state of Sodom far more effectually.than could many an
explanation besides. God practically claims that the facts
of the case have come up before Him already. But He
does nothing until facts warrant interference.” Again
(ibid., p. 248) : “The boldness of faith betrayed by this
[Abraham’s] intercession may well astound us. It surely
is not based on the assumption that God might deal un-
justly. , . . But Abraham recognized that there was 4
possibility of the perishing of righteous men in this im-
pending catastrophe, even his own relatives also. Much
311

18:1-33 GENESIS
as he hopes that Lot and his family might be rescued, he
is not so narrow or selfish as to think only of these. One
might almost say that with a heart kindled by the love
that God imparts to faith, Abraham ventures to plead the
case of God’s love over against God’s righteousness. We
may never know how these attributes of God are reconciled
to one another, except in so far as they blend in Christ.
But the boldness of this act of faith is acceptable with God
inasmuch as it is really born out of God’s heart. This
attribute is the ‘importunity’ Christ refers to in the parable
of Luke 11 :8.9’ On v, 2 5 (ihid. p. 5 5 0) : “Most amazing is
the free address of faith at this point. Yet, though it
strikes a responsive chord in every heart, hardly anyone
would be.. capable of venturing to address God thus.
Behind it lies absolute confidence in God’s fairness. Be-
sides, that grand and correct conception of God that was
characteristic of the patriarchs appears very definitely
here. God is far from being a tribal God; he is ‘the Judge
of, all the earth.’, , The critics have failed to evaluate this
fact properly.”
It has been rightly said that the three most important
s‘ for man to ponder are these: What am I?
hither am I bound?-that is to
ely of the nature, origin, and
en. 18:25 we face the problem
‘(ABG, ‘13 5 ) : -
Yahweh’s soliloq
the colloquy with Abraham which follows . . . what the
author sets ‘down is ot so much received tradition as
The result is a philosophical aside,
weh and the patriarch approach the
roblems in an enduring scheme of
theme is the relation between the
individual and society. For Yahweh, the individual who
matlters is Abraham. Having chosen Abraham as the means
for implementing His will, and as the spearhead in the
3 12

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
quest for a worthy way of life (‘the way of Yahweh,’ vs.
19), should he not now take Abraham into his full confi-
dence? The patriarch, on the other hand, in his resolute
and insistent appeal 011 behalf of Sodom, seeks to establish
for the meritorious individual the privilege of saving an
otherwise worthless community.” Concerning the correla-
tion between merit and destiny, this author goes on to say:
“The basic issue is only one aspect of the theme of the
Suffering Just, which Mesopotamian literature wrestled
with as early as the Old Babylonian age (cf. AOS 38, 1955,
68 ff.) ; the OT has treated it most elooquently in the Book
of Job.” The answer given here, Speiser goes on to say,
I‘is an emphatic affirmation of the saving grace of the just.
And even though the deserving minority proves to be in
this insltance too small to affect the fate of the sinful
majority, the innocent-here Lot and his daughters-are
ultimately spared.” (AOS-American Oriental Society,
Monograph Series)
(HSB, 30) : “God is love (1 Jn. 4:8) , but because He
loves holiness and truth, He is also just (Ps. 89:14, 145:17).
His judgments are (1) according to truth (Rev. 19:2) ;
(2) un’iversal and certain (Rom. 2:6) ; (3) impersonal and
impartial (Rom. 2:ll) ; (4) concerned with motive as
well as outward conduct (Rom. 2: 16; Luke .12:2, 3).
Three major judgments are mentioned in Scripture: (1) the
judgment of believers’ sins, which is past, having been
inflicted on the Christ at Calvary (Jn. li :24, Rom. 8: 1) ;
(2) the believers’ judgment for rewards (2 Cor. ~:10,
Rom. 14:10, 1 Cor. 3:lO-1J); (3) the judgment of un-
believers (Rev. 20 : 1 1 - 1 5 ) .’’ (Cf. motivation as Biblically
presented, according to which the fully completed inden-
tion is made equivalent to the overt act (Matt. 5:28; 1
John 3:15, 4:20), Again, Does not Scripture teach that
our Lord willingly accepted His role in redemption, which
included, of course, the death on the Cross, “for the joy
313

18: 1-33 GENESIS
that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2), that is, for the sheer
joy of redeeming lost souls?) (For a full discussion of the
problem of v. 25, see infra, “The Covering of Grace.”)
What does Abraham’s “Dialogue” with Yahweh teach
us about prayer? Note the following pertinent comment
(HSB, 3 1 ) : “Six times Abraham beseeches God to spare
Sodom, Each time God grants his petition. This incident
should encourge believers to intercede effectively and to
expect responses to prayer. It is a solemn commentary on
the awful condition of Sodom that there were not even ten
righteous people to be found within its gates.” To this we
might add the obvious and significant fact that in all of
his petitions Abraham never importuned God to save the
people of Sodom in their sins. Yet this is precisely what
is expected by all humanists, moralists, cultists, and nominal
church members, who, if they think of God at all, look
upon Him as a kind of glorified bellhop whose sole busi-
ness is tp attend to their desires. There is not tke--slightest
indication in Scripture that any man is saved outside the
Covering of Grace, the Atonement planned by the Father,
provided by the Son, and ready to be applied by .the Holy
Spirit to all obedient believers (Rom. 3:21-27, Eph. 2:8).
4. The Problem of the Heavenly Visitors.
Jamieson’s treatment of this problem is tharough-
going, as follows (CECG, 159) : “With reference to the
three persons who figure so prominently in the details of
this narrative, two opposite views have been advanced.
Some have held that these were the three Persons in the
Trinity who manifested themselves in a visible incarnate
form. But this is a byp s which not only implies a
development of docttinal ries beyond what was made
in the patriarchal age, but it is at variance with Scripture
(John 1:1$, Col. 1:lT). Others maintain that they were
all three created angels, who came on the business, and
spoke in the name, of their Divine Master, founding this
3 14

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
opinion on the fact, as Kurtz expresses it, that their mis-
sion was not merely to promise, but to punish as well as
to deliver, Others maintain that it was the Lord who
appeared, speaking through the medium of his messengers.
But this view is open to many and strong objections:-
1. Because the superiority of the one whom Abraham ad-
dressed is acknowledged through the whole interview, whilst
his two attendants, as his inferiors, ,observe a respectful
silence. 2. Because he speaks and undertakes to act as a
Divine person, whilst the other two claim only to be
messengers (19:13). 3. Because Scripture does not give
any instance of an address being presented to God as repre-
sented by a created angel. 4. Because, not to mention the
name Adonai, which is used six times, that of Jehovah is
applied eight times to him in this passage. 5. Because he
ascribes to himself the right and power of independent
judgment in the case of Sodom. 6. Because, on the hy-
pothesis that they were all three created angels, it is im-
possible to account for the third not taking part in the
judicial work at Sodom; whereas the cause of his absence,
if he was the angel of the Covenant, is perfectly explicable.
7. And only this view affords a satisfactory explanation of
the circumstance that throughout this chapter the three
are called men, while in the next chapter, the two are
designated angels-viz., to prevent a confounding the Lord
with the angels who attended Him. The condescending
familiarity of the visit accords with the simplicity of the
early patriarchal age, and with the initial education of
Abraham in religious knowledge. It is probable that in
some of the past revelations with which Abraham was
favored, a visible appearance had been vouchsafed: and
that he who must have been incapable of rising to the
conception of a spiritual Being would become familiar
with the idea of an all-powerful mysterious man, who both
in Chaldea and Canaan had repeatedly manifested himself,
promising, guiding, protecting, and blessing him as a
31T

18 : 1-313 p . GENESIS
constant and faithful Friend. Acc
festation, on the occasion of which ’hp. b.ec3me a guest of
Abraham was not an isolated event in: the patriarch’s
experience, but one of a series, in whi ,Divine, Mediator
appeared, spoke, and acted, in cond ng ,accomodation
to the simple and childlike, feelings of ,Abraham,. and as a
preluding of the incarnation, when :God. mnaqifqt .in the
flesh’ would ‘tabernacle with man.’ . . , -Thewidea qf this
narrative being a myth, invented by Some Jewish wqiter
for the gratification of national pride, js ..uttgly. I groundless;
for, once admit the peculiar relatiqn in which Abraham
stood to God, and this visit is in. perfect accordance
with his position. As little ground,.is ,there ,for putting
this narrative in the same category as :the $teethen fable of
Philemon and Baucis, for, though manx of. the details in
that mythological fable are similar to those of the Scripture
narrative, it wants the covenant relations-the grand peculiarity
of the patriarchal story-which no poetic imagination
could have invented.” In a word, the Third Personage
in this narrative of Abraham’s Intercession was surely the
Angel of Jehovah who appears so frequently through the
old Dispensations, and who appeared as God’s Only Begotten
in the manger of Bethlehem (cf. Mic. 5:2, John
17:
peiser’s comment about the “Biblical process” becomes
pertinent here (ABG, Intro., 52) : “The question
has often been posed whether the course of recent history
would have changed much if on August 15, 1769, Letizia
Bonaparte had given birth to a girl instead of a boy. The
answer is obvious when limited to decades. But would it
still be true a hundred years later, or a hundred and fifty?
The chances are that it would not, and that the deviation
from ,the original course which the advent of Napoleon
brought about would have been righted in due time. Now
1et.u~ ask the same kind of question about the biblical
process and its presumed originator. The answer can be
316

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
ventured with much‘ greater confidence because the measur-
ing span is twenty times as long. That distant event altered
history irrevocably. In the case of Napoleon, the detour
rejoined the main road, But in the case of Abraham, the
detour became itseld the main road.”
5. The Probleiii of Intercessory Prayer (in relation
to that of ‘Absolute lustice) is a most difficult one. (1)
In Abrahkm’s case,, it was presented from the most pro-
found humility: “I . . . who am but dust and ashes,” v.
27. Murphy (MG, .317) : “This may refer to the custom
of burning the dead, as then coexistent with that of bury-
ing them. Abraham intimates by a homely figure, the
comparative insignificance of the petitioner. He is dust
at first, and ashes at last.” (Cf. Gen. 2:7, 3:9; Psa. 103:13-
16; Eccl. 12:7; Jas. 4:14, etc.), The patriarch’s prayer
here surely indicates genuine humility arising from realiza-
tion of his insignificance and weakness in the presence of
his Creator. Yet, there is realism in it, for if man is no
more than body, life has very little ineaihg for amyome,
and without the Breath of Life infused into him by God
Himself, he truly is dust and ashes, and in the long run,
only that. Dr. John Baillie, in his impressive book, And
the Life Everlasting, calls attention to the notion so wide-
spread in our world today, not just that there is no such
thing in prospect as life eternal, but that such a destiny
is not even desirable. He points up the fact that this view,
to the Christian is fundamentally contrary to human being
as such; that it is derogatory to human dignity to fail to
want for our fellows all that Divine Love has done and
can do for them. “I insist,” he writes, “that to love my
brother for God’s sake is the same thing as to love him for
his own deepest sake, because the deepest thing in him is
not his either by inherent right or by conquest, but only
by the gift of God. It is only in the possibility which is
open to it of personal intercourse with God that the value
of the individual human personality can be held to reside
3 17

18:l-33
--even as it is u
im~ortality rests.”
ultimate fact is not
Resurrection and the Crown. It is
it is persuaded that the sting of
and the grave robbed of its victory; so,%that. death has no
more dominion over us. It is franM%rreCoggize,d that in
its own self-enclosed and untransfigurecj .naturej as .it must
present itself to those who do not sbaie, any such persuasion,
death must be a ghastly and terxible, thing; and indeed
it is thus that death always has presFqted :itself to sincere
and profound unbelief. To see one’s: beloved stamped into
the sod for his body to rot and the ms ,toteat him . . .
and then be of good cheer! No, there can be no good
cheer unless it be true that that to ,which this-dreadful
thing has happened is not really one’s beloved himself but
only his earthly tabernacle; unless it be true that ‘the world
passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the
will of God abideth forever’ (1 John 2:17). Whereas,
therefore, it would be nothing but shallowness of spirit for
one who had no hope beyond the grave to cease to be
obsessed by the fact of death (whether by facing it cheerfully
or by refusing to make it the object of his too
constant thought), such a result in the soul of a Christian
must be the mark of a great depth and maturity. . , . I
have quoted Spinoza’s saying, spoken in defiance of Plato,
that ‘the free man thinks of nothing less than of death;
his wisdom is a meditation not upon death but upon life.’
Let me now say that of the man who stands fast in the
liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free this may well
be true-truer than Plato’s ‘studying nothing but dying
and being dead’; since he can now cry with St. Paul, ‘For
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free- from the law of sin and death.’” (Rom. 8:2). (See
Baillie, .OB cit., 341-342). (2) Lange (CDHCG, 441):
“In regard to the thought of Abraham’s intercession, we
318

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
would make the following remarks: (a) His intercession
takes inore and mo& the form of a question. (b) He does
not pray that the godless should be freed from punishment,
but for the sparing of the righteous, and the turning away
of the destructive judgment from all, in case there should
be found a sufficient salt of the righteous among them.
(c) His prayer includes the thought that God would not
destroy any single righteous one with the wicked, although
the number of the righteous should be too small to preserve
the whole.” Gosnian adds, ibid., “The righteous, of course,
are not destroyed, although they are often involved in the
punishment of the wicked.” (3) Jamieson (CECG, lf8) :
“The continued and increased urgency of Abraham’s plead-
ing with God, which almost rises into shamelessness (Luke
11 : -8), assumes an entirely different character, from the
consideration that he is not a suppliant for any benefit to
himself, nor even to his nephew Lot, but an intercessor
for the people of Sodom generally. ‘His importunity was
prompted by the love which springs from the consciousness
that one’s own preservation and rescue are due to com-
passionate grace alone; love, too, which cannot conceive of
the guilt of others as too great for salvation to be possible.
The sympathetic love, springing from the faith which was
counted for righteousness, impelled him to the intercession
which Luther thus describes:-He prayed six times, and
with so much ardour and depth of emotion that, in
gradually lessening the numbers, in order to ensure the
preservation of the wretched cities, he seems to speak almost
foolishly, This seemingly commercial kind of entreaty is
the essence of true prayer, which bridges over the infinite
distance of the creature from the Creator, appeals with
importunity to the heart of God, and ceases not until its
point is gained’ (Keil and Delitzsch) .”
6. Pagaii Iqizitatioizs of this story. Lange (CDHCG,
43 3 ) : “Delitzsch thinks that Abraham recognized the unity
of the God of revelation, in the appearance of the three
3 19

men. , . , He adds: ‘On
re the limitations of
this original history am
and Neptune, visit an old man,
Boeotian city Tanagr
though childless hithe
prayer (Ovid’s Fasti, nd then, ’further,
the heathen accompan
are journeying as men; only Philem
childless wedded pair, receive the
the gods rescue, bearing them away with thehselves, while
they turn the inhospitable region ound the hospitable
hut into a pool of water, a Eut itieIf in’to a
temple (Ovid’s Metam. 8, 611 ff. t the essential distinction
between our ideal facts and these myths, lies in
this, that while the first lie in the center of history as
causal facts or forces, having the most sacred and real
historical results, these latter lie simply on the border
ground of mythology.” To this Gosman adds: “HOW
completely and thoroughly these words dispose of the whole
mythical supposition in this as in other cases!”
7. The Quality of Mercy
In Genesis the wickedness of Sodom (the city which
obviously exercised hegemony of a kind over all the Cities
of the Plain (frequently designated a Pentapolis) is set
forth so realistically that its very name has become pro-
verbial--“a very Sodomy’-and its various kinds of lust
are given a single name, “sodomy.” Yet here we find
Abraham interceding for these people: the righteous man,
the Friend of God, is pleading for mercy for the wicked.
One is reminded of Portia’s eloquent eiicomium on mercy
in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice:
6
The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as a gentle rain from heaven
poi the place beneath. It is twice bless’d:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
320

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 18 : 1-3 3
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to.awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice, Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy:
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
Deeds of mercy.”
Let us consider in this connection, the following pertinent
suggestions (from IBG, 622, 623): 1. Who is most likely
to come to the help of evil men? Can those who are evil
trust their own kind for support? Of course not. “Men
who are thoroughly bad are as merciless to others of their
kind as a wolf pack is merciless to the wounded wolf. . . ,
It is the consistent badness in the bad and the inconsistent
badness in the hypocritically good which make them cruel,
and the generosity of those whom the respectable may
class as bad men is due to the great warm fact that there
is so much actual goodness in them. So also the highest
generosity and compassion are in those who are neither all
bad, nor half bad, nor half good, but who, like Abraham,
come as near to thoroughgoing goodness as human nature
can. The most merciful men all through the Bible are
the best men-Joseph, Moses, David, Stephen, Barnabas.
Supremely so was Jesus, who in his perfect righteousness
could be the friend of publicans and sinners. There is no
more corrupting sin that censoriousness and self -righteous-
ness. Let church members examine their own hearts. The
321

1 0 ” > I 5 fj F:
18:l-33 GENESIS
truth ” 7 which applies to individual
. . . It is easy for the proud and fo
with power to consider the enem
serving of nothing but destructio
to themselves a supposed right to
act as though fanatical revenge had:
If Abraham had been like them be;,
over Sodom.
Being the man he w,a
needed-he was moved with pity.”
2. A second truth stands out
worth of individuals, and the evil of,involving the innocent
minority in a judgment visited on the s.” “The deepest
depravity and moral perversion of w es here; and war
with modern weapons makes this evil more monstrous than
ever.” It is a tragic fact that even good people can grow
callous to these things. “Atrocities which first shocked
the conscience may come to be accepted with only luke-
warm questioning or none at all. But a world in torment
will begin to have a better hope only when there shall be
many men like Abraham.” Should even ten men be caught
in a general destruction and given no chance to escape?
“To Abraham it seemed to be intolerable that this should
be allowed to happen. So much for the instincts which
made Abraham the type of a great soul. But observe the
further and more important fact: Abraham believed that
what was highest in his own heart was his right clue to
the nature of God. That which to his own conscience
seemed lifted above all doubt must be divine in its author-
ity. That is the meaning of the vivid story of Abraham
in the dialogue with God and of his question which he
was sure could have only one answer.”
-3 The final suggestion of the story of Sodom is a
truly somber one. “Not even five righteous persons were
dom to justify its being spared destruction. Here
is an eternal picture of the corrosive possibilities of a bad
environment. Those who accustom themselves to the ways
322

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR 1 8 : 1-3 3
of an evil society may themselves at last be evil, What is
happening now to people who malie no effective protest
against the wrongs they live with every day?”
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Even
the old pagans, in particular Socrates and Plato, repudiated
the poetic tales of the immoralities of the gods, and in-
sisted that all such tales should be censored so that im-
mature children would not be led astray by them. Plato
said expressly (Republic, 11, 379ff.), “Few are the goods
of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to
be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to
be sought elsewhere, and not in him”; again, “God is
perfectly simple both in word and deed; he changes not;
he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or
waking vision”; and again, “the gods are not magicians
who transform themselves, neither do they deceive man-
kind in any way.” This apparent antinomy between God’s
goodness and His omnipotence is resolved only by the
Christian doctrine of the Atonement. See infra, “The
Covering of Grace.” Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were
definitely repudiating the polytheistic deities of the pagan
ctreligions.”
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Coueriiig of Grace
Gen. 18:25--“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do
right ? ”
Many are the passages of Scripture which state positively
that the only remedy for sin is the blood of Christ.
(Cf. 1 John 1:7, 2:2; Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 3:25;
Matt. 26:28; John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Heb. 9:22, 9:14;
Rev. 1: 5 , etc.) , This blood-theme first appeared when
animals were slain to provide a covering-note this word
carefully-for our first parents when they discovered their
nakedness, Gen. 3:21. It appeared again in Abel’s pro-
323

GENESIW‘*I
pitiatory sacrifice, Gen. 4:4
(cf. Heb. 11:4). It appe
blood on the people, on the b
tabernacle and the vessels of th
Covenant was ratified at Sinai
peared on the door-post of e
Egypt on the memorable night
that stricken land (Exo. 12:22).
ceremonial cleansings of the Old 2
in the Cup sanctified by the lips of our Lord at the Last
Supper (Matt. 26:28). It appear in the fullness of its
efficacy when Christ bled and died on the Cross, thus
ratifying the New Covenant and at the same time abrogating
the Old (Heb. 9:11 ff., Col. 3:13-15). From that
day to this it has appeared in many parts of the world in
the Memorial Feast appointed for God’s saints to keep,
“the communion of the blood and of the body of Christ”
(1 Cor. 10:16). That Christ died is a fact of history:
that He died for our sins is a fact of revelation (1 Cor.
15:3).
These fundamental truths have been proclaimed by a19
who are worthy of the name Christian, in all ages of the
Christian era. Yet they are being challenged in our day
by the atheists, agnostics, positivists, demythologizers, and
analytical critics, and indeed all the nitpicking self -styled
Yntellectuals.” The doctrine has been assailed in all agesby
bitter opponents of the Faith-as “vulgar,” “barbaric,”
a fantasy of man’s wishful thinking, and the like. The
only efficacy of our Lord’s ministry, we are told, if any
at all, is that of the power of His example. His death
thus becomes only a martyrdom, and the doctrine of the
Atonement is thrown profanely out of the window. This
is all very soothing, of course, to the “I-love-me” spirit
thzt is so prominent in the human makeup. This is an
age in which intellectual pomposity is going its merry way.
Let me say here that if there is anything in this world that
3 24

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR
I despise most of all, except sin, it is this spirit which all
too often turns a good thinker into a pompous ass. This
worship of erudition is precisely the thing-the desire to
be as wise as God, Gen, 3 : 6, the determination to play God
-that swept man into the maelstrom of sin and suffering
in the first place, and the foremost factor in keeping him
in that environment today.
1. Iiz discussing the sigiiificaiice of the Blood of Christ,
we are dealin,g, of course, with the Biblical doctriize of the
Atowwent .
1) This word “atonement” occurs only once, in the
Authorized Version. In various other renderings the Greek
word used here, &tallage, is given as meaning “reconcilia-
tion” (Rom. 1i : 11). The Hebrew kaphar, translated
ct
atonement,” is found many times in the Old Testament;
rendered literally, it means “covering.” It seems rather un-
fortunate that this meaning was not brought over into the
Greek and English of the New Testament. For certainly,
from whatever point of view one approaches the subject,
one finds Biblical teaching to be crystal clear, namely, that
our Lord in shedding His blood, and so offering His life-
for the life of the flesli is in the blood (Lev. 17:ll)-
was providing for all mankind God’s Covering of Grace,
(John 1:29). On the divine side, everything that God
has done and will do for sinful man is inherent in the word
grace (“unmerited favor”), The Atonement, therefore,
is God’s Covering of Grace. By corning by faith, that is,
in God’s own way, as that way is revealed in the New
Testament, the sinner puts himself under the blood, under
this divine Covering of Grace. Thus divine grace and
human faith “meet together’’ and the result is, in a legal
sense, remission or justification, and in a personal sense,
forgiveness and reconciliatiou. The simple fact is that man
is alienated from God, not as a consequence of the sin of
Adam, nor of the sins of his fathers, but as the consequence
321i

GENESIS &id ’
of his own sins (cclawlessness,” 1 Johd3 :4; Rom. 3 :2b:;X!iA.
1:2l; Eph. 1:2). He has mortgage himself to sin, sold
himself under sin (Rom. 7;14, 6:k;*’Gaf. 4:3
state it was necessary for his origiml Owner
back, redeem him, lest he be lost $-foreve
the original Owner of the Totality of Beiilg (Psa. 24:1,
89:ll; 1 Cor. 10:26), loved man too much’to allow him
to perish forever, and therefore made provi$ion to buy’him
back. He gave His Only Begotten‘ (John 3:16), the Son
gave His life by shedding His blood. He paid the rangom
price; He provided the Covering of Grace whereby the
majesty of the moral law was sustained, and at the same
time everything was done that could be done to woo the
sinner back into covenant relationship with Him. (Matt.
20:28; 1 Tim. 2: 6). Those who ridicule the Blood simply
close their eyes to the lawlessness which has always pervaded
man’s realm of being. To deny or to ignore the facts of
sin and suffering, of love and redemption, is sheer stupidity.
II: In what sense does the Blood of Christ cleanse us
from sin?
One “school” answers that Christ’s blood was shed
as an example to impress upon man the magnitude of God’s
love for him; that it was not designed in any way to affect
the attitude of God toward man, but to affect only the
attitude of man toward God. But to make this the sole
objective of Christ’s death is to make sheer nonsense the
many Scriptures that speak of His dying “the just for the
unjust,” “as a propitiation for our sins,’’ “as a ransom for
us all,” etc. (1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:2; Eph. 1:7; Matt.
20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6, etc.)
Another “school” of cctheologians~’ would have us
believe that Christ “died in the room and stead of the
sinner,” ;.e., that He paid the penalty demanded by the
moral law, paid it in full, and so freed man completely
from the curse of sin. If this is true, obviously, the sinner
owes no debt, no obligation: he goes “scot free.” This is
326

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR
,completely refuted by 5 the Apostle’s words in Rom. 3 : 2 3 -
26, “all have sinned,

7 , GENESIS
$-;2 ,
the moral laws of God and get away kith it? As itt,hasa
often, been said, man actually does nbt. break the moral
law; on the contrary, that law, if irida,bed, 1 break$) 4 him,
God who is holy can do anything He:wills to do that is
consistent with His character as God;. I Buti, for ,Absolute
Holiness to accept a man in his sins wbul be,:a contradiction
in itself: it would be putting a.,premiuF ,,on,,sin; it
would be accepting sin and all the anarchy Ghat* procceeds
from sin. Therefore the problem before -the Divine. Covernment
can be stated in rather simple.,terins: it was that
of sustaining the majesty of the violateS&law while at the
same time manifesting divine merqy2 _. and compassion
toward the sinner-a demonstration - of love designed to
woo the sinner back into fellowship with God.
God is holy. God hates sin. God' cannot condone
sin, and be God. God had to deal :with sin. He could
not be God were He to fail to deal with it. Calvary was
the demonstration not only of the 'indescribable love of
God for man, but also of the awfulness of sin, Never
forget it-our sins nailed the Son of God to the Cross.
How, then, did God resolve the apparent antinomy
between His goodness and His omnipotence? This problem
was raised in ancient times by Epicurus, if I remember
correctly. If God is all good why does He permit evil to
prevail in His world. Since, however, it is apparent that
evil does prevail in the world in which He has put us,
obviously it prevails because God is not sufficiently powerful
to eradicate it. This is the age-old problem of the
balance between the goodness of God and the power of
God.
We reply to this dilemma by affirming that God
Himself has .resolved the antinomy. He Himself provided
the Covering %of Grace-the Gift of His Only Begottenessential-\
to the sustaining of the majesty of His law and
will -viol$ted by, human sin, and by the same Gift has extended
2eneral amnesty to sinful man on the terms of the
312 8

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR
Qospel. The Blood is the remedy for sin, the Gospel is
the method of application, and eternal life is the reward,
the ultimate Highest Good.
In a word: Diviiie Justice required the Atoneiizent,
und Divirie Love Provided it. God freely gave His Son,
who--“for the joy that was set before him,” the sheer joy
I of redeeming lost souls, Heb. 12:2--endured the cross,
I despising shame, and “hath sat down at the right hand of
the throne of God.” As stated so clearly by W. Robertson-
I Smith (The Religioii ,of the Semites, p. 62) ‘TO reconcile
the forgiving goodness of God with His absolute justice
l
is one of the highest problems of spiritual religion, which
in Christianity is solved by the doctrine of the Atone-
ment.” The design of the Atonement must be regarded
as twofold, namely, to vindicate God’s justice and so sus-
tain the majesty of the moral law, and at the same time
to woo man back into a state of reconciliation by a demon-
stration of His ineffable love and compassion sufficient to
overcome-in every honest and good heart-the re bellion
engendered by sin. To omit either of these objectives is
to distort the doctrine of the Atonement. (Cf. 2 Cor.
5:18-20, Luke 8:15, Rom. 3:26, 1 Cor. 6:2, Rom. 2:4-16,
Rev. 20:11-15, 22:1-5, 10:15, etc.).
IV. Where does the penitent believer meet the efficacy
of the Blood of Christ?
Denominationalized preachers proclaim glibly that we
are cleansed by the blood of Christ (which, to be sure, is
true), but they never tell the inquiring penitent how and
where to meet the efficacy of that blood; that is, they
never tell him in Scripture terms. In fact the great
majority seem to have no conception of what the New
Testament teaches about this important matter, even
though the teaching is clear. We must accept and confess
Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. We must
repent of our sins; then we meet the cleansing blood of
Jesus when, as penitent believers, we actually eizter into the
3 29

GENESIS
covenant which bas been sealed with His blood
1:21-22; Acts 16:31, 2:38; Matt. 16
2 Cor, 7:lO; Luke 13:3; Gal. 3:27).
flowed when He died. Therefore, in order to c
the efficacy of His blood, we must die wftb Rim. We
must commit ourselves to His Cross-’that of self-
crucifixion (Gal 2:20, 6:14).
Where does t
take place? It takes place when we are
Christ. When and where are we inducted into Christ?
When, as penitent believers, we are baptized into Christ.
When the Roman soldiers came to the Cross, one of them
plunged a spear into His side to make sure that He was
dead, and out of the wound flowed blood and water. The
only place divinely appointed in which we meet the efficacy
of the blood of. Christ is the grave of wpter. (Gal 3:27;
John 3:F; Acts 22:16; Tit. 3:j; Eph. 5:26). The efficacy
is in the fact that Divine grace has made this appointment
and human faith meets it, making it possible for the pardon
to take place where it must take place, namely, in the mind
of God. These facts are all made too clear for us to be in
doubt, in the sixth chapter of Romans.
Shame on those who would speak of Christian baptism
as a “mere outward act,” “mere external performance,”
ce
mere form,” etc. There are no “mere forms,” no “nonessentials,”
in Christianity. It is an insult to our Lord to

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR
John 1 : 29) . Avd, acrordiiig to plain Scriptwe teaching,
the ody $lace whew thP belirver appropriates the efficacy
of Christ’s Blood is in the baptismal grave (Gal. 3:27, Rom.
6:3-11, Tit. 3:J, Matt, 3:13-16; Acts 2:38-41, 8:12, 8:38,
10:47, 16~31-33, 22:16).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART THIRTY-ONE
Explain the Oriental ritual of hospitality as exemplified
by Abraham in Genesis 18.
How explain Sarah’s laughter on hearing the an-
‘nouncement that she would bear a son? What kind
of reaction did this indicate on her part?
Why did she subsequently resort to deception when
faced with the facts?
What reasons have we for holding that of the three
heavenly Visitants to Abraham’s tent two were angels?
Cf. Heb. 1:14.
What reason do we have for believing that the third
Visitant was God Himself in the person of the Logos?
Review the Old Testament teaching concerning the
Angel of Jehovah. Correlate Micah 5 :2.
What announcement did these heavenly Visitants
make concerning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Explain what is meant by “the perennial problem of
Absolute Justice. ”
How is this problem stated, in the form of a question,
in v. 23, and again in the same way in v. 25?
How account for the “boldness’’ of Abraham’s inter-
cession?
Would you say that it ’lacked humility?
How does Cornfeld explain the apparent familiarity
of Abraham’s approaches to God?
How refute the claim that these Cultures had not yet
attained the ideal of individual responsibility, but were
concerned only with collective righteousness and responsibility?
331

5 I ‘GENESIS
13.. Did Abraham‘s intercession iricfude ‘any effort to
.:
benefit himself?
14. Did,he ask God td Save the peapled of. Sodo
sins? Could God have done this and really $been the
living and true Cod?
15. Why is the notion completely untenable that the
narrative in chapter 18 is‘in any sense a,myth?
16. Comment on the patriarch’s declaration- in v,, -27 that
he w’as. “but dust and .ashes.”
. this be said to be realistic? ~
17. Show how the notion 1 espread in, our day
s .
1 1 . - ?
Testament ?
24. What forms do present-day denials of this fundamental
truth take?
25. With what great doctrine of Christianity are we dealing
when we discuss the Scriptures having to do with
the Blood of Christ?
26. What is meant by the Covering of Grace? How is
it related to our redemption?
27. In what sense does the Blood of Christ cleanse us from
sin?
332

ABRAHAM AS INTERCESSOR
28, How is the Blood of Christ necessary to save man
from sin?
29, What is meant by the antinomy of God’s justice and
1% goodness?
30. How is this resolved by the Christian doctrine of the
Atonement?
31. What is the twofold design of the Atonement?
32. Explain how the justice and love of God are both
involved in the efficacy of the Blood of Christ.
33. Where does the penitent believer meet the efficacy of
the Blood of Christ? Explain fully.
34. Where in the process of conversion does pardon take
place?
3 ~ . Is there any such thing taught in Scripture as “baptismal
regeneration”? Explain.
36. Explain what is meant by the Mystery of the Flowing
Blood. i
37. Is it conceivable that our Lor Head of tlie Church
would ordain “non-essential” institutions?
38. In the light of our present study review the question
of Genesis 18:23, “Wilt thou consume .the righteous
,.* . with,the wicked?”
39. In the light of the present study review, the. question
.lt of
,Genesis 18:25, ccS1iafl not die Judge Df all the: earth
do right?” ) t
4Q: What, did ,,Abraham do, at .?he+ c,onclusion of his
“d~alogue” with God?
-,
*:,A, 1 I I 4 + 1 . , >,‘,f* , I , ~ *
\
I - ~
I I. t ,‘
1 , s r ,
s < .A
f i b
< I a t
r I - I
, , , L ’ , > \.I/ f
,
. i
. / I , $ 1 r ‘
I
1 , , L ,’_ ‘* , I
>: ,< I+ h b - t a \

PART THIRTY-TWO
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
LOT’S LAST DAYS
Genesis 19 : 1 -3 8
1. Lot’s Hosjijality (vv. 1-3 )
1 And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and
Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot saw them, and rose
up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his fuce to
the earth; 2 and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn aside,
I Pray you, into yo& servaiatis house, and tarry all night,
and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on
your way. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the
street all night. 3 And he urged them greatly; and they
turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he
made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they
did eat.
While Abraham had been pleading with God, the
other two heavenly Visitants had entered the doomed city.
Note, the two angels came. Speiser (ABG, 138) : “This
identification is meant for the reader, who knows that
Yahweh stayed behind with Abraham (18:22) in order
to tell him of the melancholy mission. ‘The author was
equally direct in introducing the other visit (18: 1). But
Lot must discover the truth for himself, as Abraham“did ’
7 %
earlier.’’ It was in the light of the miracle (v. ^il) that
the “men” (vv. 5, 8, 10; cf. 18:22) were now Clk
revealed as angels. It is at this point that the text‘beccbnes
more specific. “By thus viewing the action through th?
eyes of the actors, the spectator also is caught up in the
unfolding drama, in spite of his advance knowledge.”;
Nqte that the an
in the evening. NOW the southern tip of what is.now the
Dead Sea is sope forty miles from Mebron. Normal
traveling time for that distance in the patriarchal age
334
, . <
arrived ,at Sodom “at even,” that is, 3

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
would have been about two days; supposing these visitors
had left their sumptuous meal at Abraham’s tent toward
mid-af ternoon, they must have had superhuman powers
to have made the journey in such a short time. Note
the following suggestions, from Jewish sources (SC, 93),
in which they are treated as angels: “It would surely not
have taken them so long to go from Hebron to Sodom;
but they were merciful angels, and they waited until
Abraham finished his pleading, in the hope they would not
have to destroy the place. , . , Similarly, they came there
immediately after they left Abraham, but did not enter
the city until even, hoping that Abraham’s prayers would
be efficacious.” (The first of these suggestions is from
the medieval commentator Rashi (d. 1lor), the second
from Sforno, who died at Bologna in lrro). (We must
remember that angels are represented in Scripture as having
superhuman knowledge, but not omniscience) ,
“Lot sat iiz the gate of Sodom.’’
The “gate” was
the usual resort of all, and especially of the elders, of
whatever city. There legal issues were adjudicated, trans-
actions completed, bargains made, everyday affairs dis-
cussed. The gate was “the focal point of all communal
activities in an urban center like Sodom.” Lot arose to
meet his visitors, and bowed himself “with his face to
the earth” (the manner in which courtiers and clients
address their superiors in the Amarna letters; in the cor-
responding case of Abraham (1 8 :2) , the term for “face”
is significantly missing, ABG, 13 8 ) .
Lot’s hospitality was, in the main, according to the
usual ritual, but with sigi?ificanf overtones. (1 ) He urged
them to “turn aside,” etc. Having gone out to meet them,
he invited them to come to his house (in contrast to Abra-
ham’s tent, 18:1, 6, 9, lo), suggesting that they turn aside
to get there, that is, take a roundabout way. At the
same time he invited them to “tarry all night” at his house,
adding, “and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early,
33j

19:1-38 GENESIS
and go on your way.” Custamarily, this order would have
been reversed, that is, the washing of feet should have been
the first act of t itual. But, according’ to Rashi, “Lpt
feared that if th
ashed their feet first, and woul
be discovered, the Sodomites would accuse him of
harboured them
greatly”: evidently he pressured
336,

, LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
promoted to the dignity of one of the city judges, though
not perhaps justified as an inference from v. 9, is not at
all unlikely, considering his relationship to Abraham.”
Jamieson (CECG, 160), concerning the “gate”: “In east-
ern cities it is the market, and is often devoted to other
business transactions (Ruth, ch. 4), the administration of
justice, and the enjoyment of social intercourse and amuse-
ment; especially it is a favorite lounge in the evenings,
the arched roof affording a pleasant shade.” Or, wus Lot’s
presence at $be gate of Sodom a further proof of his moral
and spiritual degeneracy? As Leupold puts it (EG, J 5 5-
556) : “Lot’s presence here will hardly be accounted for
on the assumption that he was on the lookout for guests
in order to afford his hospitality an opportunity to wel-
come chance strangers. Strangers cannot have been so
common in those days. Rather, Lot’s presence in the gate
constitutes a reproach to the otherwise good and ‘right-
eous’ man (2 Pet. 2:s). After having first moved into
the Plain of Sodom (13:11), he presently chose Sodom
itself as his dwelling place (13: 12) ; and now finally he
has arrived at the point where the activities, the bustle
and stir, are looked upon with a more or less tolerant
interest. This much cannot be denied in the reference to
Lot, that when the approach of the strangers is noticed
by him, he promptly advances to them with a gracious
invitation. He is not ignorant of the danger that threatens
chance yisitors in such a town, He arises to meet them
and bows with the customary respectful oriental salutation.
. ., . With anxiety for their welfare-for he knows what
men in the open must face-and, perhaps, conscioixsly at
sk to himself,’ he makes his invitation as attrac-
ible.” (It‘ should ‘be recalled here that, accord,-;
pture, God does not look with favor on the
concentration ]of population. His command wgs, at the, I
first, “be fruitful, and mul$ply, and replenish I the earth,
and subdue ‘it,” Gen.’ 1:28. I, “Replenish” here means “to‘
3 37

19: 1-3 8 GENESIS
stock” the whole earth with progeny. But the rebe
race took the opposite course: they concentrated on
plain in Shinar and presumed to build a city and a tower
-a tower whose top would reach “unto heaven”-making
it necessary for God to confound their speech and thus
scatter them abroad: Gen. 11 : 1-9. Concentration of
population invariably breeds vice, crime, violence, and
strife of every kind.)
2. The Violeizce of the Sodomites (vv. 4-11)
4 But before they luy down, the men of the city,
even the men of Sodm, compussed the home round, both
young and old, all the people from every quurter; 5 and
they culled unto Lot, und suid unto him, Where ure the
&en thut cmne in to thee this night? bring them out unto
us, thut we may know them. 6 And Lot went aut unto
them to the door, und shut the door after him. 7 And he
suid, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Be-
I have two daughters thut hwe not knowlz mun;
338

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:l-38
“from one end of the city to the other, there not being
even one righteous man to protest” (SC, 94), The mob
cried out to Lot to bring his visitors out to them “that we
may lrnow them,” i.e., “vent our lust upon them” (Rashi,
et aZ).This demand was, of course, “the basest violation of
the sacred rite of hospitality, and the most shameless
proclamation of their sin” (COTP, 23 3). (The verb
C<
know,” as used here, is used in the same sense as in Judg.
19 :22-26, namely, as having reference to such perversions
of the sex function as homosexuality (including Lesbianism),
pederasty, bestiality, etc., practices everywhere prevalent
among the Canaanites (Lev. 18:3, 18:22-23, 20:13,
lr), and according to the Apostle Paul, Rom. 1:24-27,
the curse of heathenism generally. It will be recalled that
the Cult of Fertility, worship of the Sun-father and the
Earth-Mother, which characterized the entire ancient pagan
world, featured ritual prostitution, phallic worship, etc.,
and sanctioned all forms of individual sex perversion as
well) I
It
was at this point that Lot committed the
egregious error of offering as a substitute his two virgin
daughters to be used as the attackers might want to use
them to satisfy their unnatural lust. But the immediate
response was even more threatening. This fellow (Lot),
they cried out, who is only a sojourner in our city, has
been trying to play the role of a judge all this while (un-
doubtedly this means that he had been wont to reprove
the people for their iniquitous ways), so now let us be
rid of him. In exasperation they threaten to deal with him
severely, that is, not just to abuse him sexually as they
sought to abuse his guests, but actually to kill him. To
the heavenly visitors all this was the final proof that
Sodom was fit only for destruction; and so they pulled
Lot back into the house, closed the door, and smote the
men outside with blindness. “What is involved here is not
the common affliction, not just ‘total blindness,’ but a
sudden stroke , , , a blinding flash emanating from angels
339

19:l-38
-who thereby aband human disguise-which
Id induce immediat
the desert or sno
has often been the
by divine intervention. i,
en pointed out (1) as beginning
in his move to the Plain of Sodom (1
s (at least tacitly)
340
s in a sexual orgy by

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:l-38
anxiety, Lot was willing to sacrifice to the sanctity of
hospitality his duty as a father, which ought to have been
still more sacred, and committed the sin of seeking to avert
sin by sin. Even if he expected that his daughters would
suffer no harm, as they were betrothed to Sodomites (v,
14), the offer was a grievous violation of his paternal
duty.’’ “While the narrative reveals Lot’s hospitality, it also
reveals his wickedness’’ (SC, 94). Murphy (MG, 322) :
“How familiar Lot had become with vice, when any
necessity whatever could induce him to offer his daughters
to the lust of these Sodomites! We may suppose it was
spoken rashly, in the heat of the moment, and with the
expectation that he would not be taken at his word. So
it turned out.” (This fact surely points up the infamy of
the men of Sodom: they would not be satisfied with what
females could offer; they had to have males to serve their
purposes.) Leupold (EG, 559-560) : “The kindest in-
terpretation of Lot’s willingness to sacrifice his daughters
to the depraved lusts of these evildoers stresses that it was
done with the intent of guarding his guests. To that
certainly must be added the fact that under the circum-
stances Lot was laboring under a certain confusion. But
Delipsch’s summary still covers the truth, when he de-
scribes Lot’s mistakes as being an attempt to avoid sin
by sin. In days of old, when an exaggerated emphasis on
hospitality prevailed, we might have understood how such
a sacrifice could be made by a father. But in our day we
cannot but feel the strongest aversion to so unpaternal an
attitude. Luther’s attempts to vindicate Lot% character
are quite unconvincing: for Lot could hardly have an-
ticipated with a certain shrewdness ‘that the Sodomites
were so bent on this particular form of vileness as to refuse
any substitutes. In fact, their refusal to accept Lot’s sub-
stitute argues for an iviediy of evil purfiose that sur-
passes all comprehension.” ieson (CECG, 160) : “The
offer made by Lot was so eme as plainly shows’ ‘that
3 4i

1931’3 8 ‘ GENESIS
he had been thrown into a-state of the most perturbed and
agitated feeling, between fear of the popular violence and
solicitude for the safety of the strangers that were under
his roof.” The incident (IB, 626-627) “is recorded to
Lot’s credit as one who was concerned at all costs to ful-
fill the sacred obligation of a host to protect his guests.
At the same time, such treatment of the daughters would
have been abhorrent to Hebrew morality.’’ Again, (ibid) :
“Compared with the general population of Sodom Lot was
a decent person. The writer of Second Peter
could even think of him as ‘just Lot, vexed with t
conversation of the wicked.’ The moments came when,
as in the vile events described in this chapter, he was more
thanavexed. He tried to resist the extreme outrage which
But he had got himself into a

I like
LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-3 8
There are three summarizations of Lot’s acts and their
motivations which are worthy of being presented here to
bring to a close this phase of our subject. The first is by
Whitelaw (PCG, 2 5 3 ) : “The usual apologies-that in
sacrificing his daughters to the Sodomites instead of giving
up his guests to their unnatural lust, Lot (1) selected the
lesser of two sins (Amhose); (2) thereby protected his
guests and discharged the duties of hospitality incumbent
on him (Chrysostom) ; (3) believed his daughters would
not be desired by the Sodomites, either because of their
well-known betrothal (Rosenmuller) , or because of the
unnatural lust of the Sodomites (Lange) ; (4) acted ‘rough
mental perturbation’ (Augustine) -are insufficient to ex-
cuse the wickedness of one who in attempting to prevent
one sin was himself guilty of another (Delitzsch), who in
seeking to be a faithful friend forgot to be an affectionate
father (Kalisch), and who, though bound to defend his
guests at the risk of his own life, was not at liberty to
purchase their safety by the sacrifice of his daughters
(‘Speaker’s Commentary’) .”
A second excellent summarization is that of Speiser
(ABG, 143): “Lot is dutiful in his hospitality. His man-
ner with the visitors, however, appears servile (‘with his
face to the ground,’ vs. 1)’ as contrasted with the simple
dignity of Abraham (18:2), and both his invitation and
nt preparations lack his uncle’s spontaneity. But
the unwritten code, Lot will stop at nothing in
order to protect his guests. Presently, the identity of the
visitors is revealed in a flash of supernatural light (v. 11).
The angels’ intercession serves to bring out the latent
weaknesses in Lot’s character. He is undecided, flustered,
ineffectual. His own sons-in-law refuse to take him
seriously (14). He hesitates to turn his back on his
possessions, and has to be led to safety by the hand (16),
a child-an ironic sidelight on a man who a moment
earlier tried to protect his celestial guests (von Rad).
3 43

19: 1-38
Lot’s irresoluteness makes ncolierent (20) Small
wonder that his deliverance is finally
moment to spare. Mad the sun risen a
might have shared the fate of his wife; for God’s
mysterious workings must not be looked at by man.” In
addition to all this, Lot’s degeneracy is further under-
scored, in his declining years, by intoxication and incest
(vv. 30-38). Though neither of these were of his own
making, they surely do point up his failure as a father,
by proving that he allowed his offspring to suEfer the
contaminations of the environment in which he had placed
them by his own choice and had allowed them to grow up,
to become promised to men of Sodom, and so to become
ted by the moral rot with which the Cities of the
Plain fairly‘ stank. It is significant-is it not?-that after
this last-recdrded disgraceful incident, the name of Lot
disappears completely from sacred history, not even his
deaih being recorded. “Here is an eternal picture of the
corrosive possibilities :of -a bad environment. Those who
accustom themselves to the ways of an evil society may
themselves .at last be evil. What is happening now to
people {who make *no .effective protest against the wrongs
344 ’

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
heavenly foundations, choosing for the present time without
colicern for eternity (I 3 : 5-1 8 ). Lot’s misfortime
should be a warning for all” (HSB, 3 1).
4. The Iniquity af Sodow avd Gonzorrab
The iniquity of the Cities of the Plain included certain
corollary practices, such as (I) lack of social justice (Isa.
1:9-17), (2) reveling in the indulgence of all kinds of
vice openly (Isa. 3:4-12: note tendency in our day to assume
that there is a certain virtue in “unblushing openness”
in the practice of vice-a sophisticated kind of hypocrisy;
(3 ) priestly (ecclesiastical) heresy and moral corruption
(Jer. 23: 14-1 5) ; complete disregard of the poor, in an
affluent society: poverty in the midst of plenty (Ezek.
16:49) ; preoccupation with things of the secular wmld
(Luke 17:26-32); obsession with sex (Jude 7: note the
phrase, “gone after strange flesh,” that is, a departure from
the order of nature in the corruptions practised). (In our
day the ancient Cult of Fertility has been superseded by
the by-products of libidinal psychology) . I
It was the city’s sexuul depravity, however, that pro-
vided the basic reason for its utter destruction. On. this
fact the consensus is practically universal. E.g., ‘ “The sin
of Sodom was unnatural vice” (IB, 627), as is evident
from the fact that Lot knew all too well what‘ remaining
in the street all night would have meant to his visitors.
“The unnatural vice that takes its name from this incident
was an abomination to tlie Israelites, Lev. 18:22, and was
punished with death, Lev. 20:13; but it was rife among
their neighbors, Lev. 20:23; cf. Judg. 19:22ff” (JB, 35).
The unnatural vice alluded to here was, undoubtedly bomo-
sexuality, in all likelihood accompanied by all forms of sex
perversion. (It should be noted that bestiality is also
specifically mentioned in the Scripture references: cf. Lev.
18:22, 23; 20:13-16.) Lesbjaizism (female homosexual-
ity) was probably common also: the name derives from the
345
. ,

19~1-38 GENESIS
island of Lesbos where Sappho the Greek poetess, main-
tained the first “finishing schoolJ’ in history for young
women, which achieved the reputation of having been a
disseminator of this vice among the women of Lesbos and
the surrounding Greek states.)
Young men and women of our time need to be warned
against these unnatural practices. In this category belong
the solitary sex dcts (voluntary in origin and involving sex
satisfaction through some method of erotic stimulation of
the sex organs). These are unnatural in that they involve
the abuse of the sex function; they are harmful in that
they tend to become habitual and hence gradually to weaken
the will. In this category we put the following: mastur-
bation, commonly called “self -abuse,” sometimes erroneously
called onanism (cf. Gen. 38:s-10). (Onan’s act was an
offense against the theocratic family, not an act indulged
for erotic pleasure). The act, however, if it becomes
habitual with young boys, certainly tends to vitiate the
practised, undoubtedly it contributes to
life.
Besfiality, coition of a human
otic satisfaction obtained
a corpse (a practice prev-
where mummification of
le and female, was COM-
he person obtains sexual
346

LUT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
Hoiizosexual activity, even though it involves another
person, belongs in the category of solitary sex acts because
the erotic pleasure is confined to the one who plays the
role of the active agent in the perversion. Homosexuality
may stem from a glandular dysfunction; generally, however,
it seems to be psychological in origin, that is, a habit
formed in adolescence which results in such a weakening of
the will that the victim, in adulthood, lacks the mental and
physical strength to cast it off. In the end, its effect, like
that of alcoholism, is often pathological; obviously, it is
~iot a natural use of the sex function. Many eminent
authorities speak of it as a “cogenital anomaly” rather than
a disease. Usually the homosexual possesses characteristic
psychic and physical traits of the opposite sex. Pederasty
is carnal copulation of an adult as the active partner with
a boy as the passive partner. Sodoiizy, basically, is defined
(WNCD) as “carnal copulation with a member of the
same sex or with an animal, or unnatural copulation with
a member of the opposite sex.” As a matter of fact, however,
the term has come to be used in many legal codes
for all kinds of sex perversion. History proves that in
cultures in which homosexuality has become a practice
woman has never been accorded any particularly honorable
status; moreover, that the spread of the perversion throughout
the population, as in the days of the so-called “Enlightenment”
in Athens and in those of the Empire in
Rome, is an unfailing mark of national decadence. The
morale of a people depends upon the national morality;
and the national standard of morality depends very largely
on the nation’s sex morality. Socrates, in Athens, had
his “beloved”-his name was Alcibiades. Plato winked at
the practice. Pericles, the great Athenian statesman, on
the other hand, despised it. And Aristotle deplored it,
criticizing Plato for his seeming tolerance of the perversion.
It is amazing to discover how many eminent
persons in the field of literature in particular have been
3 47

19,: 1 -3.8$ ;
enslaved by it, and
enslay-qment, (See ~
wotld, Rom. 1:18-3
in our day to instru
uses of the sex function; morewe
begin even before the child rea
never be overlooked, as *Dr. Will
pointedly, that “the control of the
principle of civilization,”-to be b
oyment of the other:
the satisfaction thus becomes spiritual and not exclusively
physical. There is a vast diffe
3-48

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:1-38
realistically tested by cbnsidering what the consequences
would be if every human being did it under the same or
similar circumstafices;‘ indubitably homosexuality would
destroy the race in short order. Hence the Divine proiiouncetnents
recorded in Gen. 1:26-31; 2:18, 21-2J. It
simply’is izot good”foq the man to be alone: under such
conditions his potentialities could never be realized and
the race would die “aborning.” Moreover, in every case
of addiction to the prkctice, it could serve only to debase
the intimacy of the marriage relation and so to vitiate the
very character and design of the conjugal union. Sexual
coition without love is simply that of the brute. On the
other hand, coition sanctified by love, is treated in Scripture
as an allegory of th’e mystical relationship between Christ
and His Bride, the Church. (Cf. the entire Song of Solomon;
also Eph. 5:22-33, 2 Cor. ll:2; Rev. 21:l-4, etc.).
(Suggested reading: The Sexual Offeizder and His Offemes,
by Benjamin Karpman, M.D., Julian Press, Inc., New
York, 1954).
In view of all these facts, we are not surprised to
find that sodomy is anathematized throughout both the
Old and New Testaments as an abomination to God, and
that the terrible judgment which descended on Sodom and
Gomorrah is repeatedly cited as a warning to all people
who would tolerate such iniquity. Thus the name of
Sodom itself has become a byword among all peoples whose
God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. See,
on sodomy, Exo. 22:19, Judg. 19:22ff; Lev. 18:22-23,
20:13-16, 20:23; Rom. 1:24-27, 9:29; 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim.
1:lO; on sodomites, Deut. 23:17-18; 1 Ki. 14:23-24, 15:12,
22:46; 2 ICi. 23:7; on the divine judgment visited on the
Cities of the Plain, Deut. 29:23, 32:32; Isa. 1:9-10, 3t9,
13:19; Jer. 20:1J, 49:17-18, 23:13-15, 50:40; Ezek. 16:46-
Jl, 53:58; Lam. 4:6; Amos 4:11, Hos. 11:8, Zeph. 2:9;
Matt. iO:lJ, 11:23-24; Luke 10:12, 17:28-30; 2 Pet. 2.16;
‘ a
Judge 7, Rev. 1 1. : 8.
3 49

19:1-38
s I. Lot’s Delive
*I2 And the men said $1 Hast thou here
besides? son-in-law; and thy sons, *&d$‘
whomsoever thou ’hast in the city, bring them out of the
place: 13 for we will destroy this place, because‘ the. cry of
them is waxed great before Jehouah;;and. leh&ah hath
sent us to destroy it. 14 And Loti’went out, ad spake
unto his sons-in-law, who married his- IlisQghters, alzd *wid,
Up, get you out of this place; yjcjkovah will destroy
the city. But he seemed unto hi -on4aw *as one that
mocked. 15 And when the morning.tiros~,--tbew .the angels
hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take &y uiife, an& thy two
daughters that are here, lest thou bel consumed I in the iniquity
of the city. 16 But he lingeve$; and the men laid
hold upoa his hnd, and upon thebhand of hh wife, aad
upon the hand of his two daugbterl, Jehovah being merciful
into him: and they brought him forth, md set him
without the city. 17 And it came to pass, when they had
brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy
life; look not behind thee, neither st
escape to the mountain, lest thou be

,
LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:1-38
had no sons, only daughters, and the reference in v. 12 is
to the soils of his married daughters; (2) that v. 12 had
reference to sons-in-law whom Lot regarded as sons. How
can this be clarified in the light of v. 14, ccsons-in-law, who
married his daughters,” marginal rendering, “were to
marry,” hence only prospective sons-in-law? Rashi holds
that there were two sets of sons-in-law; Ibn Ezra also
explains that other sons-in-law are intended, namely,
married to daughters who had died, as supported by the
phrase, “thy two daughters that we beye,” which implies
that there were others who were no longer here, Le., no
longer alive. (See SC, 95). Speiser points up the am-
biguity of this phrase, “two daughters that are here,” mean-
ing, literally, “within reach, present, at hand,” which, he
says “could mean either pledged but still at home, or un-
attached altogether” (EG, 140). (KD, COPT, 234) : V.
15 “refers not to the daughters who were still in the
father’s house, as distinguished from those who were
married, but his wife and two daughters who were to be
found with him in the house, in distinction from the bride-
grooms, who also belonged to him, but were not yet living
with him, and who had received his summons in scorn,
because in their carnal security they did not believe in any
judgment of God (Luke 17:28-29). If Lot had married
daughters, he would undoubtedly have called upon them
to escape along with their husbands, his sons-in-law.”
‘There need be no significant dilemma here: as stated
(SIBG, 242) : “either Lot’s virgin-daughters had been only
betrothed to them [his sons-in-law,.v. 141, or Lot had
other daughters who perished in the flames.” Lange
(CDHCG, 438) : “We may add that there is no intimation
that Lot had warned married daughters to rise up.” The
consensus seems to be that the two virgin daughters (v. 8)
who were with Lot in his house, and who later escaped,
were about to be married to men of Sodom.
351

-
Lot's Reluctance. "When tu "morning arose," that
place at sunrise, the sun being
tence to save its worshipers w8uld:;
(SC, 95). But "Lot lingered.
sions! Lange, ibid., 438): "It is
Lot, from his spiritless, half
it difficult to part from his I
d with the greatest difficult
os. 7: 8, Ephraim being the
ern kingdom of Israel) w
at is, he had never truly f
and the devil. Like many church members in our day,
he-somewhat reluctantly, to be sure-kept one face turned
toward the Godsof Abraham, but he'lived much of his life
with his real face rned in the direction of the
;Illure'nAentst 'of this il world (2 Tim. 4:lO) ; he
had just enough religion probably to make him uncomforti
able, but not enough to make him genuinely happy. Hence,

I
LOT’S LAST DAYS 19 A-38
I 6. The Flight to Zoar (vv, 18-22)
I8 hid Lot said uiito them, Oh, vot so, my lord:
19 behold now, thy serpaiit bath fouizd favor in thy sighit,
and thou bast wagnified thy lovingkindness, which thou
bast showed unto m e in saving my life; and I camot escape
to the mouiitahi, lest evil overtake me, aiid I die: 20 be-
hold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one.
Oh let me escape thither (is it not a little one?), and nzy
soul shdl live. 21 And he said unto him, See, I have
accepted thee coizcerniii-g this thing also, that I will not
overthrow the city of which thou hast spoken. 22 Haste
thee, escape thither; for I caiziiot do aizytbiizg till thorn be
come thither. Therefore the izavze of the city was called
Zoar.
Note in v. 17, Lot’s mode of address, “my Lord,”
marginal rendering, “0 Lord.” Does this mean that
Yehwe Himself has arrived on the scene (cf. again, 18:1,
3, also 22, where Jehovah is represented as remaining behind
to converse with Abraham, after the two angels had
gone on their way, etc.), or that He has been present all
along in the person of the Angel of Yahweh? (Read Lange
on “The Angel of Jehovah,” infra.) Whitelaw (PCG,
2 5 5) : “Adoizai, which ould rather be translated Lord;
whence it would alm seem as if Lot knew that his
interlocutor was Jehovah Keil admits that Lot recognised
a manifestation of God i the angels, and Lange speaks of
a miraculous report of the voice of God coming to him
along with the miraculous vision of the angels.
That the
historian uses ‘them’ instead of ‘him”on1y proves that at
the time Jehovah was accompanied by the angels, as he
had previously been at Mamre (1 8: 1) ,” Concerning the
address, “my Lord,” the Rabbis construe this as God (SC,
96),
It seems that even now Lot could not tear himself away
altogether from his worldly environment. This reluctance,
3 53

f9:1-38
couple‘d with ”fear that those who Gad been his fellow-
place,” cclittXe7’) . (Cf. Gen. 13 : 10 ;
winded plea at a mament of such extreme danger. Lot
appreciated but little what was being done for him” (EG,
566). (Cf. also Gen. 36:32-33, 46:21; Num. 26:38-40;
1 Chron. 1:43-44, 5:8, 7:6-7, 8:1, 3). This town, Bela,
or Zoar, which was well known in Old Testament times,
lay to the southeast of the Dead Sea (Gen., 13:10, Deut.
34:3, Isa. 15:5, Jer. 48:34). D
an-perhaps another-earthqua
was flooded, but it was rqbuilt farther
and inhabited until the Middle Ages.
7. The Divine Judg
23 The sun was rise
unto Zoar. 24 Then Jehoua
omorrah brimstone un
2j and he outrthre
the inhubitants of the cities, and thd auhich gred
upon the ground. 26 But his wife looked buck from behind
him, and she bec%me u pillar of salt. 27 And‘ Abruh
gat @I early in the morning to the place where he bad
3 54

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:1-38
stood before Jehovah: 28 aiid he looked toward Sodom
and Gon$owah, aiid toward all tJge land of the Plain, and
beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the lalid went up as the
swzolte of a furllace.
29 And it came to pass, wheiz God destroyed the cities
of the Plaiiz, that God reii$e?nbered Abraham, uiid seiit Lot
out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the
cities ii? which Lot dwelt.
(I) At sunrise “Jehovah rained upon Sodom and
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven,”
etc. “Fire from Jehovah”: probably for emphasis to make
it clear that this was a judgment from the Lord and not
a natural phenomenon. (SIBG, 243, comment on v. 17) :
“The Angel Jehovah has now come up from Abraham,
and charged Lot and his companions to depart with the
utmost haste, and without the smallest regret, from that
rich country abounding with sensual indulgence (Luke
9:62; Phil. 3:13, 14; Matt. 24:16-18).” The Divine
command was, “Escape for thy life,” that is, “it is enough
that you save your life; do not try to save your wealth
also.”
(2) Obviously, from correlation of various Scriptures,
the cities destroyed were not only Sodom and Gomorrah,
but also Admah and Zeboiim (cf. Amos 4:11, Isa. 1:9, 10;
Gen. 14, Deut. 29:23, Hos. 11:8), Bela, or Zoar, of the
five cities of the Jordan circle being exempted, in response
to Lot’s appeal, vv. 21, 22. Note v. 22: the catastrophes
wrought by God are always under His control: “this one
is not unleashed until Lot has safely reached Zoar; by that
time the sun has fully risen.”
(3) The nature of the catastrophe has been a matter
of much speculation. The means causing the destruction
are said to have been “brimstone and fire” (“sulphur and
fire”) poured out so plentifully on the doomed cities that
God is said to have “rained” them down “out of heaven.”
355

256) : “Whateyer it
and New “Testa
ymd. There is no limit to the infectioul of coni
vice. Therefore, there is but one step for Absostice
to 1 take; that is, to destfoy utterly. History
that repeatedly, in the account of man’s sojourn on
earth, the deskruction of a nation, or at least of a nation’s
Poww; .has become a moral necessity. (Cf. Ezek. 21 :27,
Jer. lk5-10, Exo. 17:14-1F, Deut. 25:17-19, 1 Sam. 15,
Rev. 19:ll-16, etc.). Lange (CDHCG, 438): “The decisive
execution of the judgment proceeds from the rnanition
of Jehovah upon the earth, in kompany with the
angels, but the source of the decree of judgment
in-Jehovah in heaven.” ’
Some authorities hold that, an eart

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:l-38
the Dead Sea (cf. Gen. 14:3). However, the Genesis
account says nothing about the drowning of lands or cities
(although the idea is found in writings of Hellenistic-
Roman times). The expression “brimstone and fire” does
suggest volcanic phenomena, such as swallowed up the
Roman Pompeii. “But geologists tell us that the most
recent volcanic activity in that area tool: place ages before
Abraham’s time” (Kraeling, BA, 72). Again, the language
of Gen. 19:29 certainly does suggest, at first glance, an
earthquake; however, the narrative itself attributes the
cataclysm to some kind of igneous agency. “Sulphur and
fire,’’ writes Speiser, should be “sulphurous fire,” adding,
“the context points plainly to hendiadys” (ABG, 141).
Writes Leupold (EG, 568): “Nothing points directly to a
volcanic eruption; nor do lava remains happen to be found
in the immediate vicinity. Nor does the expression ‘overthrow’
necessarily point to an earthquake. The ‘fire’ which
rained down from heaven may have been lightning. The
‘sulphur’ may have been miraculously wrought and so have
rained down together with the lightnings, although there’
is the other possibility that a huge explosion of highly
inflammable rnatettials, including sulphur, deposited in the
ground (cf. ‘bitunien pits’ of 14:lO) may have cast these
materials; especially the sulphur, high into the air so that
they rained upon these cities, causing a vast conflagratiqn. .
Besides, it seems quite likely that after, these +combustible
materials Ace ,,tool: I ’ fire,,
, 1 ,the. very site of the cities was,
urnt away to guite a depth, ,and so the waters
r’n part of the Dead Sea filled in the burntr
it ’is a well-known fact that the southern
end of the Dead, Sea hardly exceeds a depth of twelve feet
ns much less, ;.ei, three or four feet.
nts it i8 by no means difficult to
the other hand, ,the porthern portion re.a&es
m depth, of 1300 ,feet. To assume, then, that
e is the result, of ,this ‘overthro
3 !7

19: 1-3 8 GENESIS ”!’Lh.
ardly seems reasonable or in4 c‘onformi
account. A conflagration that would
out the ground to a depth of 1,3001;
ceived. An earthquake, causing sa
fissure in the earth’s crust, would at ‘least have called for
the I use of the term’ ‘earthquake’ in this cmne*ction, -for,
apparently, in‘ violence +it would urpassed all ‘earthquakes
of which man has a r Equally difficult
would be the assumption that Jordan once flowed
through this delightful valley of the Pentapolis and poured
its water into the Elanitic Gulf.” Again, with reference
to the word “overthrow,” v. 29: “Only that which stands
up can be ‘overthrown.’ Consequently the verb connotes
something of the idea of proud men and institutions being
brought low by the Lord who ‘throws down the mighty
from their, seats’ and lays iniquity prostrate.” (Cf. Deut.
29:23, Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18, 50:40; Amos 4:ll).
It has been rightly said that “an air of mystery hovers
over the location of the cities of the plain.” Tradition
had it for centuries that they were immediately north of
the Dead Sea, a notion arising no doubt from the vague
identification of the Vale of Siddim with the “Salt Sea”.
(Gen. 14:3). (See Part 27 supru). However, the names
of Sodom and Zoar continued, even down to Roman times,
to be associated with the area south of the Dead Sea: The
archaeologists, G. Ernest Wright, assumes, with W. F.
Albright, that the destroyed &ties were I_ ‘buried beneath
the shallow waters of the southern tip of the Dead. Sea:
Recently E. G. Kraeling has questioned this identification..
He writes (BA, 70-71) : “Recent >writers of the highest
competence have been willing to assume ,that Sodom hand
Gomorrah lay by the Dead Sea shore hand that they. were,
submerged by the rise of the waters. However, the land,
suitable for agriculture was precious in a ‘country like .
Palestine, and was reserved for that :purpose. , One must
therefore look for the sites of Sodonz; Gomoryah, and Zbur:
358‘

I
’
LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
01% biiglwr ground aiid back from the lake. Their destruc-
tion would have been due to other agencies than the waters
of the Dead Sea. The names of the cities are certainly
not invented. Sodom and Zoar, furthermore, still occur
as names of inhabited places south of the Dead Sea area
in the fourth century A.D., and the former name clings
to Jebel Sudunz, as local natives called it, or Jebel Usduiiz,
as it has become known since Robinson to this day. These
Christian towns may not have stood on the identical sites
of the ancient ones, but presumably were close enough to
them to preserve the old names. All indications point to
their having lain near the southern end of the Dead Sea.
. , . If one looks at the area on the south end of the Dead
Sea, one notes first of all that on the west side there is no
suitable location for any habitations, because the brooks
that enter in here near the Jebel Usduiiz are salty. Far
different, however, is the situation 072 the eastern side of
the soi& eiid of the Dead Sea.” Kraeling goes on to show
why this region may well have been the original site of
the doomed cities, concluding that “only further explora-
tion and some excavation can shed light on the old cities of
this neighborhood.” Cornfeld writes (AtD, 68) that at
the southern end of the Dead Sea there is “the deepest rift
valley in the world, which lies 1290 feet below sea level.”
He goes on to say that “earthquakes or some other destruc-
tive agents seem to have wiped out a civilization that had
existed near the Dead Sea and east of the Jordan from the
Stone Age (4000 B.C.E.) down to the Bronze Age (around
the 20th century) :” he says, “is the area which
included the ‘five cities of the Plain,’ or ‘the circle of the
vale of Siddim.’ . . . It is thought by those who favor the
geological theory, that these cities were situated south and
east of the Dead Sea, most of them being now covered by
the water. We know also that nomadic peoples settled down
in villages and towns before the 20th century B.C.E., just
at the time when the dark age was settling over Palestine,
3 59

1,9:1-38 . GEP$ES;[S i'st
due, apparently, to Amorite ~ invasioqs,
bandoned about 'the 20th
,, 3 . I , ,
h villages in souther
on, the 'people retu
Note also this comment i
"The destruction 'od Sodo
other cities of $he valley may
A # .% .
lightning igniting the petrole
which svas plentiful, in the reg
the. &ore of the' Dead 'Sea ' at
feet, so;u.thea$t of ;the Ljsan pe
served as a' religious shrine
Pogtery . bdicates that the si,te,
2300 B..C. t6,ca 1900 B.C., , This
Sodom and Gpmorrah were de?tr
the +ljf,e,ti~e of, .bbrpham.
and, that thesg, sites.
3 60
_.

LOT’S LAST DAYS ~ 1’9 : l-i8
“Evidently her heait ?Pias in the city. She appreciated but
1idk what the deliveijng angels had done for her. Almost
escaped, she alldwed her vigilance to relax. ’ So she became
a :warning example io’ all who do not make a ‘clear-cut
break witji the life of wickedness, as Jesus’ remarkable
warning designates her’ (Luke 17: 32). ’ God’s punishment
overtook her on the ‘spot, apparently through the agents
already operative he destruction” (EG, 571). It is
most iizterestiiig te here that Lot’s wife’is the oizly
woivaii-of the irtaizy who appear iq Biblical story-whonz
we arc exhoded to “reiizeiizber,’: ‘ and that. ( 1
by’ our Loid
Himself. (Cf. Matt. 26:13). ’
The woman became “a pillar. of salt.” ’ At the, ’time,
Lot and his daughters could qot have seen this: th’ey did
have sense enough (and some faith, it . seems) to. ’have
realized that looking back would have meant their destruc-,
tion. We see no reason for assuming that Lot’s wife was
instantaneously transformed into a pillar of salt: a more
probable interpretation would be that she was overcome by
the sulphurous vapors and afterward became encrusted
with salt. It would be most unreasonable for us in this
twentieth century to assume that this tragic-one might
say, mummif ied-f igure could have survived the elements
for any great length of time, much less for a time-span
of four milleniums. It is a matter of common sense to
hold that attempts at identification, either past or present,
must be fruitless. (Cf. the apocryphal book of Wisdom
[l.0:7, ?a pillar of salt , , , a memorial of the unbelieving
soul”] ). We would agree, however, with Leupold (EG,
572), that “in the days shortl.Ji after the catastrophe the‘
salt-encrustkd, ‘crudely p rFmainh bf the uuhappy
woqiiai &re to’be seen.”
‘ 8 L I
. I
Abrakain’s Last Vie ev‘idenkes ‘of the’ kitas‘tro-‘
r r P , t
pGe ‘is portrayed iri i ’f fit sentehces. Veif ’ early’
in :t$e -:morning he’ rkturned :to ?the* spot whithdr ,he ‘had
ac.companied his celestial’ tisitors ‘the day ’before ’ (1 8 !22),
3 61

19~1-3 8 GENES1
which, in the vicinir
across theT Jordan plain
mountainous region, beyond (Imr q
ites). What was his. puxpose?
self as to whether ten righteous
Sodom and the city spared; in ge
had happened.. And what was t
It was total destruction: only.th
plain where once these thrivin
as the smokedof a furnace.? W
the appalling catastrophe proclaimed .,its reality to Abrad
ham; to subsequent ages it scamped a witness of its severity
(I) upo@ the region itself, in the black and desolate aspect
it has eversince possessed,; (2) apon the Page of inspiratiow,
being, by subsequent Scripture writers constantly referred
to as a standing warning against incurring the Almighty’s
wrath . , . and (3) upon the course of ancient tradition,
which it powerfully affected.” (See esp. Tacitus, Histories,
V. 7;. for..traditional refehences to the event, see Diodorus
Siculus, Strabo, Pliny, Ovid, etc.) . Jamieson (CECG,
164) : “From the height which overlooks Hebron, where
the patriarch stood, the observer at the present da
extensive view ,spread out before him towards’ the Dead
Sea. A cloud of smoke rising from the plain wmld be
visible to a person at Hebron,now, and could have) been;
therefore, to Abraham as he looked towar
morning of its destruction.” What an awesome spectacle
this was that was spread” out before the eyes+of Abraham
on that fateful morning!
Skinner (ICCG, 3 TO) : “Abraham‘s morning;visit to
the spot *where he, had< parted from his .heavenly). guests
forms an impressive close to.the narrative., . . an*e€fective
contrast to 18: 16.” Speiser (ABG, 143’): “As &Abraham
peered anxiously at the scene. of, the disaster
distant heights of Hebron, he ,had his answer to the question
he had posed the night1 before. A pall of denset vapors
3 62

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:l-38
was all that could be seen. All life was extinguished. The
author is much too fine an artist to spell out the viewer’s
thoughts, and the close of the narrative is all the more
eloquent for this omission.’’ This is a characteristic of the
Bible throughout: in so many instances it tends to speak
more forcefully by what it omits than by what it tells us,
The most impressive example of this is in the Lord’s
narrative of the Forgiving Father (Luke 15 : 11 -32).
It is charged by the critics that the Genesis story of
Lot’s wife’s inglorious end is just another version of an
ancient folk tale. Alleged similarity of the Greek legend
of Orpheus and Eurydice is cited as a corresponding
example. According to this legend, after his return from
the Argonautic expedition, Orpheus lived in Thrace, where
he married Eurydice. His wife having died as a result of
the bite of a serpent, Orpheus followed her into Hades,
where his sweet music alleviated temporarily the torments
of the damned, and enabled him to win her back. His
prayer was granted, however, on one condition, namely,
that he should not look back at his wife until they had
arrived in the upper world. At the very last monient “the
anxiety of love” overcame the poet and he looked around to
make sure that his wife was following him, only to see
her snatched back into the infernal regions. The mytho-
logical tale of Niobe is another example of the case in
point, As the alleged wife of the king of Thebes, Niobe,
filled with pride over the number of her children, deemed
herself superior to Leto, who had given birth to only two
(Apollo and Artemis, by Zeus). Apollo and Artemis,
indignant as such presumption, slew all her children with
their arrows, and Niobe herself was metamorphosed by
Zeus into a stone which during the summer always shed
tears. We can only affirm here that to find any parallels,
in nzotivatioiz especially, between these fantastic tales and
the fate of Lot’s wife, must require the activity of a pro-
fane mentality, The awesome manifestation of Divine
3 63

19~1-38 GENESIS
judgment (though tempered with mercy where possible)
on a population given over wholly to iniquity, one in which
Lot’s wife perished because of her unwillingness to break
with her environment, cannot reasonably be put in the
same category with these folk tales which reflect only
human passion, pride, jealousy and revenge. Leupold (EG,
565): “Because the command not to look around is met
with in heathen legends . . . that fact does not yet make
every command of that sort in Israelitish history a part of
a legendary account. We ourselves may on occasion bid
another to look around without being on our part involved
in some legendary transaction.”
Recapitulation, v. 29. The interesting fact in this
statement is the change in the name of God from Jehovah
to Elobim. The total destruction of the hotbeds of in-
iquity-the Cities of the Plain-was a display of Divine
Powers which causes men to fear the Sovereign of the
universe; therefore “Elohim” and not “Yahweh.” (Cf.
Gen. 28:17, Heb. 10:31, 12:29, etc.). The destruction of
the cities of the plain was not at this moment viewed by
the writer as an event related to the Abrahamic covenant
and intercession, but as a sublime vindication of Divine
(Absolute) Justice. Nor should the fact be overlooked
that in this transaction “God remembered Abraham,” that
is, Lot was not delivered simply for his own sake, but
primarily for Abraham’s sake. “The blessings that go forth
from one true-hearted servant of God are incalculable,”
Cf. Jas. 5:16-18.
The Import of the Account of the Catastrophe that
befell the Cities of the Plaiia is clearly indicated by the
repeated references to it throughout both the Old and New
Testaments, as a warning against incurring the wrath of
the Almighty (Deut. 29:22-23; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18,
50:40; Lam. 4:6; Amos 4:ll; Luke 17:32; 2 Pet. 2:6,
Jude 7). Cf. J. A. Motyer (NBD, 1003) : “The story of
Sodom does not merely warn, but provides a theologically
3 64

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:l-38
docuinented account of divine judgment implemented by
‘natural’ disaster. The history is faith’s guarantee that
the Judge of all the earth does right (Gn. 18 :25). Being
personally persuaded of its justice and necessity (Gn. 18 : 20,
21), God acts; but in wrath He remembers mercy, and
in judgment discrimination (Gn. 19: 16, 29) .” “The fate
of Sodom and Gomorrah is referred to by Jesus as a warn-
ing to those who are inhospitable to the Gospel, Matt.
IO:15, Sodom is a symbol for dead bodies lying in the
street of a city, Rev. 11:8” (HBD, 692). “The plain in
which the cities stood, hitherto fruitful ‘as the garden
of Jehovah,’ became henceforth a scene of perfect desola-
tion. Our Lord Himself, and the Apostles Peter and
Jude, have clearly taught the lasting lesson which is in-
volved in the judgment: that it is a type of the final
destruction by fire of a world which will have reached a
wickedness like that of Sodom and Gomorrah” (OTH,
77). Cf. Luke 17:29, 2 Pet. 2:6, 2 Thess. 1:7-10, 1 Cor.
3:13; Heb. 10:27, 12:29; Jude 7; Rev. 14:lO 20:14-1j;
cf. Exo. 3:2, 19:18; Isa. 66:15-16; Ezek. 1:13ff.; Dan.
7:9, Matt. 25:41, etc. The partial judgment upon Sodom
and Gomorrah, like the universal judgment of the flood,
serves as an example-and a type-of all the divine judg-
ments, and especially of the Last Judgment; hence in
Scripture the two are closely associated (Luke 17:26-32,
2 Pet. 2:4-9). The Last Judgment is the Second Death
(Rev. 20:14, 21:8).
8. Lot’s Last End (vv. 30-38)
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, an,d dwelt in the
mountaim, and his two daughters with him; fur. he feared
to dwell i77, Zoar: aizd he dwelt if7 a cave, he and his two
daughters. 31 And the first-born said uiato the younger,
Our father is old, aizd there is not a man in the earth to
come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32
come, let us make our father driizk wine, and we will lie
36j

19: 1-3 8 GENESIS
with &m, that we may Preserve seed of our father. 33
And they made their father drink wine that night: and
the first-born went in, and lay with her father: and he
knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And
it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said
unto the younger, Behold, I lay yester-night with my
father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and
go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed
of our father. 3j And they made their father drink wine
that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him;
aBd he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both. the daughters of Lot with child by
their father. 37 And the first-born bare a son, and culled
his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto
this day. 38 And the younger, she also bare a sm, and
called his name Ben-amnzi: the same is the father of the
children of Ammon unto this day.
The Flight to Zoar. Lot and his two daughters reached
Zoar some time after sunrise. Evidently he did not stop
there, however, but kept on going until he found a cave
where he continued to dwell, for how long we do not
know. “Lot’s rescue is ascribed to Elohim, as the Judge
of the whole earth, not to the covenant God, Jehovah,
because Lot in his separation from Abraham was removed
from the special providence of Jehovah. In his flight
from Sodom he seems to have been driven by a paralyzing
fear: just how much of the obedience of faith was in-
volved it is impossible to say. (We must remember that
fear is the opposite of faith). Evidently a kind of paralyz-
ing terror gave way to a calculating fear which has been
properly designated an “unbelieving fear.” At any rate
he kept on until he could bury himself and his daughters
in a cave. Caves are said to be numerous in these moun-
tains of Moab. He knew, evidently, that it had been de-
creed that Zoar also was to be destroyed and had been
3 66

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19~1-38
spared only because he could not reach the mountain in
time. Now that there was time to go on, naturally he
feared that the decree would be fulfilled. Or it is possible
that the inhabitants of Zoar who had been spared did not
feel too hospitably inclined to this family who had once
been inhabitants of the cities now lying in ruins. Lange
(CDHCG, 442): “The chastising hand of God is seen in
the gravest form, in the fact that Lot is lost in the dark-
ness of the mountains of Moab, as a dweller in the caves.
But it may be questioned whether one is justified by this,
in saying that he came to a bad end. . , . His not returning
poor and shipwrecked can be explained upon better grounds.
In any case the testimony for him, 2 Pet. 2:7-8, must not
be overlooked. There remains one bright point in his life,
since he sustained the assaults of all Sodom on his house,
in the most extreme danger of his life.” To this Gosman
adds (ibid., 442): “It may be said, moreover, that his
leaving home and property at the divine warning, and when
there were yet no visible signs of the judgment, and his
flight without looking back, indicate the reality and genu-
ineness of his faith.” This again raises the question: Was
Lot’s flight witbout /ookiiig back entirely an act of faith,
or was it indicative primarily of a paralyzing terror? Of
course it may be that the inhabitants of Zoar, panic-
stricken, had fled from the region of danger and dispersed
themselves for a time in the adjacent mountains. At any
rate Lot is now far from the habitations of men, with his
two daughters as his only companions.
The Origins of Moab aiad Ammon (vv. 30-38). There
is great variability of opinion as to what motivated Lot’s
daughters to resort to deception to cause themselves to
be impregnated by their father. These, of course, were
incestuous unions, severely condemned even by primitive
peoples extant in our own day. It is not difficult to see
how repugnant such an act was to the Israelites of a later
age. At some point in this phase of Lot’s life, his daughters
3 67

19: 1-3 8 GENESIS
resolved to procure children through him, and for that
purpose on two successive evenings they made him in-
toxicated with wine, and then lay with him through the
night, one after the other, that they might conceive seed.
“To this accursed crime they were impelled by the desire
to preserve their family, because they thought there was no
man on earth to come in unto them, i.e., to marry them,
‘after the manner of all the earth.’ Not that they imagined
the whole human race to have perished in the destruction
of the valley of Siddim, but because they were afraid that
no man would link himself with them, the only survivors
of a country smitten by the curse of God” (BCOPT, 237).
We can hardly agree with the charge that these young
women “took advantage of Lot’s inebriation to indulge
incestuous passion” for the simple reason that the text does
not justify such a conclusion. Of course, even though it
was not lust which impelled them to this shameful deed,
“their conduct was worthy of Sodom, and shows quite as
much as their previous betrothal to men of Sodom, that
they were deeply imbued with the sinful character of that
city.” In all likelihood, incest was not under any taboo
in Sodom. As for Lot himself, vv. 33 and 35 do not state
that he was in an unconscious state: they simply tell us that
in his intoxicated condition, though not entirely uncon-
scious, yet he lay with his daughters without clearly under-
standing what he was doing. It surely would be stretch-
ing the truth, however, to say that his behavior in this.
instance was that of a strong man. “Lot’s daughters are,
like Tamar, not here regarded as shameless; their ruling
motive is to perpetuate the race” (JB, 37). Jamieson
summarizes as follows (CECG, 165) : The theory is sug-
gested that “the moral sensibilities of Lot’s daughters had
been blunted, or rather totally extinguished, by long and
familiar association with the people of the Pentapolis, and
that they had already sunk to the lowest depths of de-
pravity, when they could in concert deliberately plan the
3 68

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19~1-38
commission of incest with their own father. But this first
impression will soon be corrccted or removed by the recol-
lection that those young women, though living in the midst
of a universally corrupt society, had yet maintained a
virtuous character (v. 8); and therefore it must be pre-
sumed that it was through the influence of some strong,
overpowering motive they were impelled to the adoption
of so base an imposture. It could not be, as has been
generally supposed, that they believed themselves to be the
sole survivors of mankind; for they knew that the in-
habitants of Zoar were still alive, and if they were now
residing in a cave in the Moabite mountains, they must
have seen multitudes of laborers working in the vineyards
with which those heights were extensively planted. They
could not be actuated, therefore, with the wish to preserve
the human race, which, in their view, was all but extinct.
Their object must have been very different, and most
probably it was this. Cherishing some family traditions
respecting the promised seed, and in expectation of which
Abraham, with Lot and others, had migrated to Canaan,
they brooded in despondency over the apparent loss of that
hope-since their mother’s death; and believing that their
father, who was descended from the eldest branch of
,Terah’s family, and who was an object of God’s special
charge to the angels, had the best claim to be the ancestor
of the distinguished progeny, they agreed together to use
means for securing the much-longed-for result. This view
of their conduct is strongly confirmed by the circumstance
that, instead of being ashamed of their crime, or concealing
the origin of their children by some artfully-contrived
story, they proclaimed it to the world, and perpetuated the
memory of it by the names they bestowed upon their chil-
dren; the eldest calling her son Moub” (meaning, “from my
father”) , “and the younger designating her son Bewammi”
(“son of my people”). It is evident from the text that
these sexual relations of Lot’s daughters with their father
3 69

19:l-38 GENESIS
occurred only this once: there is no intimation that it was
a continuous affair or even repeated. That they used
subterfuge (their father’s intoxication) to accomplish their
purposes seems to be additional evidence that they them-
selves regarded what they did as repugnant, but under the
circumstances as the only means possible to secure the
perpetuation of the family. The whole affair apparently
is a case in point of the old-and false-cliche, that “the
end justifies the means.” We might add that Lot’s sus-
ceptibility to inebriation certainly does not add one iota
of glamor to his character. We feel that Speiser’s treat-
ment of this incident (ABG, 145) should be given here
as follows (even though we cannot fully agree with it):
“As they are here portrayed, Lot and his two daughters
had every reason to believe that they were the last people
on earth. From the recesses of their cave somewhere up
the side of a canyon formed by the earth’s deepest rift,
they could see no proof to the contrary. The young women
were concerned with the future of the race, and they were
resolute enough to adopt the only desperate measure that
appeared to be available. The father, moreover, was not a
conscious party to the scheme. All this adds up to praise
rather than blame.” (Note that incest is defined and
strictly forbidden in Scripture: Lev. 18:6-18; 20:11, 12,
17, 19-21; Deut. 22:30; 27:20, 22, 23; Ezek. 22:ll; cf.
1 Cor. 1:1. Cases of incest: Lot with his daughters, Gen.
19:31, 36; Reuben, Gen. 35:22, 49:4; Judah, Gen. 38:16-
18, 1 Chron. 2:4; Amnon, 2 Sam. 13:14; Absalom, 2 Sam.
16:21, 22. Cf. also Gen. 20:12, 13; Gen. 11:29; Exo.
6:20) . Note the following significant paragraph: “Grace,
in conversion, seldom takes away the original character of
the natural man, but merely overrules its deficiencies to
humble him and. warn others; and refines and elevates its
excellencies; and thus, by the Spirit, mortifies the old while
it quickens and establishes the new man” (SIBG, 244).
3 70

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
Finally, this comment of Skinner (ICCG, 312), who follows
rather closely the so-called “analytical” interpretation
of Genesis, “Whatever truth there may be in the speculations,”
Le., about the origins and character of the patriarchal
stories, “the religious value of the biblical narrative
is not affected. Like the Deluge-story, it retains ,the power
to touch the conscience of the world as a terrible example
of divine vengeance on heinous wickedness and uniiatural
lust; and in this ethical purpose we have another testimony
to the unique grandeur of the idea of God in ancient
Israel.” But let us not forget that “vengeance” on God’s
part is izot reueizge, but uiizdication, that is, the vindication
of God’s absolute justice in not permitting His purposes
and laws to be violated with impunity. Penal infliction
of the right kind must have for its primary end
the sustaining of the majesty of law against all transgressors.
This, we are told, will be the essential character of the
Last Judgment (Rom. 2:5, Rev. 20:11-12).
The History of Lot ei.ilds here.
According to Robin-
son, the Arabs have a tradition that he was buried on
Beni-Naim, the elevated spot where Abraham stood before
the Lord interceding for Sodom and from which next
morning he viewed the smoke rising from the distant
desti.uction. “Lot is never mentioned again. Separated
both outwardly and inwardly from Abraham, he was of
no further importance in relation to the history of salva-
tion, so that even his death is not referred to. His de-
scendants, however, frequently come into contact with the.
Israelites; and the history of their descent is given here to
facilitate a correct appreciation of their conduct toward
Israel” (BCOTP) 238).
9. The Moabites amd Anziizonifes
The story of Lot, which is a kind of drama within
a drama in relation to the story of Abraham, has now come
to a rather inglorious end. The inspired writer “never
loses sight of the fact that history, in the last analysis, is
371

19~1-38 GENESIS
made by individuals. But the individual, in turn, mirrors
larger issues and events” (ABG, 142). Apparently the
narrative is designed to lead ultimately to the story of the
Moabites and the Ammonites, two ethnic groups whose
history becomes interrelated to a considerable extent with
the history of Israel. (The Moabites occupied the area
east of the Jordan directly opposite Bethlehem, extending
from Edom on the south northward to the river Arnon.
Their capital city was Ar, the site of which is unknown
today (Num. 21:15, 28; Isa. 15:l). The Ammonites
occupied the region east of the Jordan northward from
the river Arnon to the watershed of the Jabbok, on the
banks of which their capital, Rabbath-Ammon (Deut.
3:11), was situated. This city lives on in our day in
Amman, the capital of the Kingdom of Jordan: it was re-
built by Ptolemy Philadelphus in the 3rd century B.C.,
and was named Philadelphia (cf. Rev. 3 :7). The Ammon-
ite territory was bounded on the north by Gilead, which
lay almost exactly opposite Samaria, the capital of the
northern kingdom of Israel, to the west of the Jordan.)
Generally speaking, the Moabites and Ammonites re-
peatedly were sources of annoyance, and at times of out-
right opposition to the Israelites. Their idolatrous prac-
tices are said to have been abominations to Jehovah.
Ammon’s abomination was the worship of the god Moloch,
and that of Moab was the worship of the God Chemosh
(1 Ki. 11:7, Num. 21:29): these were the tribal gods
around whom the customary ritual of the pagan Fertility
Cult was centered, an integral phase of which usually was
human sacrifice (cf. 2 Ki. 3:27; Lev. 18:21, 20:2-4; Jer.
32:34-35; 2 Ki. 23:lO; Amos 5:26, Acts 7:43). Their
idolatrous practices included also the worship of pagan gods
of surrounding peoples (Judg. 10:6). Both the Moabites
and the Ammonites are frequently portrayed in Scripture
as being a constant snare to the Children of Israel (as
rejoicing in the latter’s misfortunes and taking delighit in
3 72

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
spreading their “abominations” of false gods among the
Israelites and debasing their moral ideals through inter-
marriage). (Cf. Num. ZJ:l-J, 1 Ki. 1l:l-8, 2 Ki, 23:13,
1 Chron. 8:8, Ezra 9:l-4; Neh. 13:l-3, 23-27). Note
also the predictions of divine judgments on the Moabites
and the Ammonites (Isa., chs. 11, 16; Jer., chs. 48, 49;
Ezek. 25:5, 8-11; Amos 2:l-2; Zeph. 2:9). As for political
and military maneuvers and battles, cf. Judg. 3:12-30,
11:17-18, 11:25; Num., chs. 22-24; Josh. 24:9; Judg.
11:17-18, 11:29-33; 1 Sam. 14:47, 22:3-4; 2 Sam. 8:2;
1 Ki. 1l:l-7, 2 IG. 1:1, 3:J-27, 13:20; 2 Chron., ch. 20;
Mic. 6:J, etc.) .
There is another side to this coin, however, which
cannot be ignored, as follows: (1) Yahweh did not permit
the Israelites to distress the Moabites and Ammonites in
passing through their territories because those lands had
already been allotted to the children of Lot for a possession
(Deut. 2:2, 9, 19). (2) Moses died in the land of Moab,
where from the summit of Pisgah he was given a view of
the Land of Promise, from Dan and Gilead on the North to
the valley of Jericho even unto Zoar, on the South; “and
the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab
thirty days” (Deut. 34:l-8). (3) The book of Ruth
indicates free travel and friendly relations between Judah
and Moab. (4) The king of Moab brought aid to David
against Saul and provided shelter for David’s parents in a
time of crisis (1 Sam. 22:3-4). ( 5 ) The Moabites and
Ammonites are represented as having been used by Jehovah
as instruments for the punishing of Judah (2 ICi. 24:l-4).
In view of these scriptures, to speak of the account
of the origins of the Moabites and the Ammonites (Gen.
19:30-38) as “a fiction of Israelite animosity,” “a gibe at
Israel’s foes,” etc., as the critics have done, is absurd.
Leupold (EG, 576): “Again and again critics label this
whole story the outgrowth of a mean prejudice on the part
373

19:1-38 GENESIS
of Israel against these two neighboring nations, a hostile
fabrication and an attempt to heap disgrace on them.
Yet passages like Deut. 2:9 surely indicate that Israel
always maintained a friendly spirit toward these brother
nations, especially toward the Moabites. David’s history
also may serve as an antidote against such slanders. Me
have here an objective account of an actual historical
occurrence.” Similarly K-D (BCOTP, 23 8) : “This ac-
count was neither the invention of national hatred to the
Moabites and Ammonites, nor was it placed here as a brand
upon these tribes. These discoveries of a criticism imbued
with hostility to the Bible are overthrown by the fact, that,
according to Deut. 2:9, 19, Israel was ordered not to touch
the territory of each of these tribes because of their descent
from Lot; and it was their unbrotherly conduct towards
Israel alone which first prevented their reception into the
congregation of the Lord (Deut. 23 :4, 5) .”
It seems, of course, that the Ammonites did become
inveterate enemies of the Children of Israel. But not the
Moabites, apparently. This brings us, in conclusion, to
the most significant phase of the question before us, which,
strange to say, seems to be overlooked by commentators
generally, That is the fact that the Moabites did play-
one might well say, an indispensable role in the develop-
ment of the Messianic Line. That role was played by a
Moabite maiden, Ruth by name, who in tbe‘ca
human events (providentially directed, no doubt) married
a wealthy, land-owning Bethlehemite by the name of Boaz,
by whom she became the ancestress of Bbed, Jesse, and
David, in the order named genealogically, and hence of
Messiah Himself. The canonicity of the Book of Ruth is
determined by this genealogical connection with the Mes-
sianic Line. Cf. Matt. 1:5-6, Luke 3:31-32, Isa. 9:6-7,
Acts 2:29-36, Rom. 1:3-4, etc., and especially the book
of Ruth.
374

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:l-3 8
The Ammonites survived into the second century
B.C. Judas Maccabaeus fought them in his day (1 Macc.
v. 6). Moab disappeared as a political power when Nebu-
chadnezzar (605-562 B.C.) subjugated the country, but
it persisted as an ethnic group. The Nabataeans (capital,
Petra) held and developed Moab in the first two centuries
B.C. and the first century A.D. (See any Dictionary of
the Bible for information about the Moabite Stone).
See Gen. 19:37-38, the phrase, “unto this day.” “That
is, the days of Moses. They have remained Moabites unto
this day, not having intermingled with strangers. Or the
meaning may be: This fact is known to this day” (SC,
99) . Leupold suggests “present-day Moabites” and “pres-
ent-day Ammonites” as a better rendering (EG, 577).
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Angel of Jehovah
Concerning the significance of v. 24, “Yahweh rained . I . from
Yahweh out of heaven,” Whitelaw writes (PCG, 266) : “From the
Lord, Le., Jehovah (the Son) rained down from Jehovah (the Father),
as if suggesting a distinction of persons in the Godhead (Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, Athanasius, and others, Delitzsch, Lange, Wordsworth);
otherwise the phrase is regarded as ‘an elegancy of speech’
(Ibn Ezra), ‘an emphatic repetition’ (Calvin), a more exact characterization
of the storm (Clericus, Rosenmuller) as being out of heaven.”
Note also the following excellent presentation by Leupold (EG,
669-670) : “But what construction shall we put upon the statement,
‘Yahweh rained . , . from Yahweh from the heavens’? We consider
Meek’s translation an evasion of the difficulty by alteration of the
text, when he renders: ‘The Lord rained . , , from the sky.’ . . ,
However, there is much truth in the claim that the name of God
or Yahweh is often used in solemn or emphatic utterances in place
of the pronoun that would normally be expected. K.C. [Koenig’s
Koinmeiztar on Genesis] lists the instances of this sort that have
been met with in Genesis up to this point: 1:27a, 28a; 6:lb; 8:21a;
9:16b; 1,1:9b; 12:8b; 18:17a; 19:13b, etc. But that would hardly
apply in this case, for our passage would hardly come under the list
of those ‘where the divine name is used instead of the pronoun.’
For how could Moses have written: ‘Yahweh rained from Himself’?
Yet the statement is certainly meant to be emphatic, but not merely
emphatic in the sense in which Keil, following Calvin’s interpretation,
suggests, For both hold that the statement is worded thus to indicate
that this was not rain and lightning operating according to the
375

19:1-38 GENESIS I;
‘wonted course of nature,’ but that it might be stated quite emphatic-
ally that more than the ordinary causes of nature were at work.
We believe that the mere expression, ‘God, or Yahweh, rained from
heaven,’ would have served very adequately to convey such an
emphatic statement. But in this instance Yahweh was present in
and with His angels, whom He had delegated to this task and who
acted under specific divine mandate, He who had the day before
been visibly present with them, was now invisibly with them. When
his agents acted, He acted. Consequently we believe that the view
which the church held on this problem from days of old is still
the simplest and the best: ‘God the Son brought down the rain from
God the Father,’ as the Council of Sirmium worded the statement.
To devaluate the statement of the text to mean less necessitates
a similar process of devaluation o€ a number of other texts like
1:26, and only by such a process can the claim be supported that
there are no indications of the doctrine of the Trinity in Genesis.
We believe the combined weight of these passages, including Gen.
1:1, 2, makes the conclusion inevitable that the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity is in a measure revealed in the Old Testament, and especially
in Genesis. Why should not so fundamental a doctrine be made
manifest from the beginning? We may see more of this truth than
did the Old Testament saints, but the Church has through the ages
always held one and the same truth, Luther says: ‘This expression
indicates two persons in the Godhead.’”
Lastly, we quote Lange (CDHCG, 438) : “The antithesis which
lies in this expression, between the manifestation of Jehovah upon
the earth, and the being and providence of Jehovah in heaven is
opposed by Keil. [The Hebrew phrase here] is according to Calvin
an emphatic repetition. This does not agree with Keil’s explanation
of the Angel of the Lord. Delitzsch remarks here: There is certainly
in all such passages a distinction between the historically revealed,
and the concealed, or unrevealed God (comp. Hos. 1:7), and thus a
support to the position of the Council of Sirmium: ‘the Son of
God rains it down from God the Father.’ The decisive execution of
the judgment proceeds from the manifestation of Jehovah upon the
earth, in company with the two angels; but the source of the decree
of judgment lies in Jehovah in heaven. The moral stages of the
development of the kingdom of God upon the earth, correspond with
the providence of the Almighty in the heavens, and from the heavens
reaching down into the depths of cosmical nature.”
In relation to the foregoing, we add here the following pertinent
comments by James Moffat, The Theology of the Gospels, 127-128
(Scribners, New York, 1924). Referring to John 12:39-40, Moffatt
writes: “In Matthew this follows a quotation from Isaiah, which is
also cited in the Fourth Gospel, and for much the same purpose, to
account for the obduracy of the public, who are no longer the
Galileans but the Jews, and also to explain, characteristically, that
Isaiah the prophet had a vision of the pre-existent Christ or Logos.
376

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
These tliiiigs said Isaiah because he saw his glory, and he spoke of
hinz [Isa. 6:1-11], The latter conception had been already expressed
in the phrase, Your father Abraham ezulted to see my day [John
8:66]. The Fourth Gospel thus deepens and at the same time reverses
the synoptic saying. The prophets and just men of the Old Testa-
ment had not simply longed to see the messjanic day of Jesus Christ:
they had seen it, The pragmatism of the Logos-idea enables the
writer of the Fourth Gospel to believe that the saints and prophets
of the Old Testament had more than anticipations of the end; their
visions and prophecies were due to the pre-existent Christ who even
then revealed His glory to their gaze. The glory of Yahweh which
Isaiah saw in his vision was really the glory of the pre-existent
Logos, who became incarnate in Jesus Christ.
“The theology of the Fourth Gospel thus elaborates the truth that
the mission of Jesus had been anticipated in the history of Israel.
This is the idea of the saying in 8:66, Your father Abraham exulted
to see ?nu day. It is the conception of Paul (e.g., Gal. 3:16f.), who
also traces a messianic significance in Gen. 17:17; and Philo, before
him, had explained (De Mutat. Nominum, 29-30), commenting on the
Genesis passage, that Abraham’s laughter was the joy of anticipating
a happiness which was already within reach; ‘fear is grief before
grief, and so hope is joy before joy.’ But Philo characteristically
avoids any messianic interpretation, such as the Fourth Gospel pre-
sents.” For Scripture affirmations of the Pre-existence of Christ,
see John 1:l-14, 8:68, 1:18; John 17:3-6; 1 Tim. 3:16; Gal, 4:4;
Heb. 1:l-4; Col. 1:12-23; 2 Cor. 5:17-20; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 2:14-18;
Rev. 1:12-18, etc.
Remember Lot’s Wife
Luke 17:32-the words of Jesus Himself, a warning
which no human being can afford to ignore.
Judging from personal experience both the ignorant
and the sophisticated of this world have been inclined to
worry themselves about Cain’s wife, when as a matter
of practical import, that is, having to do with the origin,
nature and destiny of the person, they should be concern-
ing themselves, and that seriously, about the fate of Lot’s
wife and what the example of her tragic end means for
all mankind. In days gone by, every community harbored
one or two old reprobates who liked to pose as “preacher-
killers.” One of our pioneer preachers was confronted
by just such a self-appointed critic on occasion, who said
to him, “Preacher, I would probably join church, if I
3 77

19~1-38 GENESIS
could find any of you fellows who could answer a question
for me.” “And what is the question?” asked the evangelist.
“If you could just tell me where Cain got his wife, I
might give more serious though to joining church.’’ The
evangelist thought for a moment and then replied: “Old
man, until you quit thinking about other men’s wives, you
won’t be fit to join church. Besides, there is nothing in
Scripture about ‘joining’ church. You don’t ‘join’ church;
you believe, repent, and obey Christ, and He adds you to
His church. But you’re not ready for that until you
repent.” The Lord Himself has warned us about the
futility of casting pearls before swine (Matt. 7:6). (The
key to the problem of Cain’s wife is made very clear in
Gen. $:$).
The only woman in the entire Bible whom we are
admonished to remember is Lot’s wife, and the admonition
is from the Lord Himself. From her inglorious end we
derive the following truths:
1. The manner in which an entire family can be
corrupted by an evil environment. 2. The difficulty of
saving a good person from an evil end (1 Pet. 4: 18).
What manner of woman Lot’s wife was we do not know.
But this truth surely applies in some measure to Lot and
his two daughters. 3. The danger of looking back, when
as a matter of fact God can use only those who look to
the future (Luke 9:62; Heb. $:l2, 6:l). 4. The possi-
bility of being nearly saved, yet wholly lost (Mark 12:34).
Y. The inevitability of divine judgment on the disobedient
(Heb. 5:9, 10:26-27; Rom. 2:5-11, Gal. 6:7, etc.).
Our text is directly related by our Lord to the account
of His Second Coming. When that occurs, He tells us,
it will be the concern of His saints to escape for their lives,
as Lot and his told to do. They are not to
look back lest t pted to go back. They are not
to be reluctant to leave an environment marked for de-
378

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
I
struction (cf. 2 Pet. 3:lO; 13). Hence Luke 17:33,
“Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it, but
whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.”
M. Henry (CWB, 36) : “With what a gracious violence
Lot was brought out of Sodom, v. 16. It seems he did
not make as much haste as the case required. It might have
been fatal to him if the angels had not. laid hold of his
band, aizd brought him forth, and saved him with fear
(Jude 23). The salvation of the most righteous men must
be attributed to God’s mercy, not to their own merit,
We are saved by grace. With what a gracious vehemence
he was urged to make the best of his way, when he was
brought fortb (v. 17). He must not hanker after Sodom:
Look izot behiiid thee. He must not loiter by the way:
Stay iiot in, all the plain. He must not take up short: of the
place of refuge appointed him: Escape to the mountaiii,.
Such as these are the commands given to those who through
grace are delivered out of a sinful state. (1) Return not
to sin and Satan, for that is looking back to Sodom. (2)
Rest not in self and the world, for that is staying in the
plain. And (3) Reach towards Christ and heaven, for
1
I
that is escaping to the mountain, short of which we must
not take up.”
“Let us, then, seek to pursue a path of holy separation
from the world. Let us, while standing outside its entire
range, be found cherishing the hope of the Master’s return.
May its well-watered plains have no charms for our hearts.
May its honors, its distinctions, and its riches be all surveyed
by us in the light of the coming glory of Christ.
May we be enabled, like the holy patriarch Abraham, to
get up into the presence of the Lord, and, from that
elevated ground, look forth upon the scene of widespread
ruin and desolation-to see it all, by faith’s anticipative
glance, a smoking ruin. Such will it be. ‘The earth also,
and the things that are therein, shall be burned up” (NBG,
209). (Cf, Heb. 12:29; 10:27-3 1).
3 79

.19: 1-3 8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART THIRTY-TWO
What was the first proof that Lot’s visitors were not
just human beings?
What activities took place at the gate of these
Canaanite cities?
What did Yahweh do when the angels went on to
Sodom?
How account for Lot’s sitting in the gate of Sodom?
What were the details of Lot’s ritual of hospitality?
Why probably did Lot suggest delaying the washing
of his Guests’ feet until the next.morning?
Why did Lot pressure his visitors not to “abide in the
street all night”?
Does the Bible indicate that God favors the concentration
of population? Cite Scripture evidence to
support your answer.
How could Lot’s presence at the gate have been
evidence of his degeneracy?
What occurred at Lot’s house that night?
What does the verb “know” (v. 5 ) signify?
What offer did Lot make to the mob in an attempt
to satisfy their demands?
What light does this proposal throw on Lot’s character?
Do you consider that there was any justification
for his action? Explain your answer.
How was Lot rescued from the mob?
List the steps in Lot’s progressive degeneracy.
What did he do that might be cited in his favor?
How does Delitzsch evaluate his actions morally?
What is the evidence that Lot had “become familiar
with vice”?
How can it be said that Lot’s action was an attempt
to avoid sin by sin?
What is the Apostle Peter’s testimony concerning Lot?
380

21.
22,
23,
24.
2j.
2 6.
27.
28.
29.
30,
3 1.
32.
33.
3 4,
3 1.
3 6,
3 7.
3 8.
39.
40.
LOT’S LAST DAYS 19:1-38
Summarize Whitelaw’s analysis of Lot’s character.
Summarize Speiser’s treatment of Lot’s character.
How does Lot’s action point up the influence of an
environment ?
Define homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, pederasty,
sodomy.
What were the besetting sins of the Cities of the Plain?
Explain how homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, etc.,
are uwatural acts.
What does the term “sodomy,” generally speaking,
include?
What are the two functions of the conjugal relation
that are thwarted by homosexuality?
Explain how any form of sex perversion is an act of
utter selfishness.
How does the true conjugal union differ from acts
of sex perversion?
What is the prime fallacy of all so-called “situationist
ethics” ?
Of what is the true conjugal relation scripturally declared
to be an allegory?
What is the over-all teaching of the Scriptures about
sodomy?
What attitude did Lot’s sons-in-law take in response
to his warning? What does their attitude indicate
about them and about Lot?
How correlate v. 8, v. 12, and v. 14 of chapter 19?
Why did Lot linger in Sodom in spite of his visitors’
warning?
What light does this cast on his character?
What did his visitors have to do to get him out of
Sodom ?
In what sense is it said that God was “merciful” to
him?
What members of Lot’s family got out of Sodom?
381

I9 : 1 :3 8 GENESIS- j’,. :
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
5 1.
52.
53.
5 4.
5 5.
5 6.
5 7.
58.
To what small city did God petrnit Lot to go? What
were his excuses for wanting,
What was the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah?
What are the theories as to the nature of this ca-
tastrophe?
What is the great moral lesson-for man to learn from
it?
When and why does moral necessity demand penal
infliction by Absolute Justice?
What are the reasons for rejecting the view that the
catastrophe produced the entire Dead Sea as it is
known today?
What is the traditional theory as to the location of
the Cities of the Plain? Why is this theory now
generally rejected?
What is Kraeling’s view of their location, and why?
What does Cornfeld have to say about this problem?
Explain how the natural and the supernatural could
have been combined in producing the catastrophe.
What was the fate of Lot’s wife? What is the most
plausible explanation ob what happened to her?
What, in all probability, motivated her reluctance to
“escape for her life”?
What was the sight that greeted Abraham when he
looked out on the evidences of the disaster?
In what three ways did the catastrophe witness, in
subsequent times, to its severity?
It is stated that in many instances the Bible speaks
more forcefully by what it omits than by what it
tells us. Give examples.
To what does God’s destruction of Sodom and Go-
morrah point forward to, ultimately?
In what respects is the story of Lot’s wife far superior
to all folk tales of the kind?
Why the change in the name of the Deity to Elohim,
in v. 29.
3 82

LOT’S LAST DAYS 19: 1-38
F9, In what sense did God “remember” Abraham?
60, For what probable reasons did Lot and his daughters
resort to dwelling in a cave?
61. What should we think of Lot from the fact that he
did not even look back to see what was happening?
62. For what reasons may we suppose that Lot’s daughters
sought to produce seed by their father?
63. Can we charge their act to incestuous passion?
Explain?
64. How is incest treated in Scripture?
65. What is always the chief end of penal infliction of
any kind?
66. Distinguish between vindicatio?? and vengearzce.
67. Where does the history of Lot end, and why does it
end where it does?
68. Mho were the sons of Lot’s daughters by their father?
What areas in Palestine did their tribes occupy?
69. What practices of the Moabites and the Ammonites
were ccabominationsyy to Jehovah?
70. What does Old Testament history indicate about the
subsequent relations between the Israelites on the one
hand, and the Moabites and Ammonites on the other?
71. What evidence do we have that certain friendly relations
existed between the two groups?
72. What reasons have we for rejecting as absurd the
critical notion that this account of the origins of
Moab and Ammon, in Genesis, was “a jibe at Israel’s
foes”?
73. What is the chief importance of the story of the
Moabites, Le., in relation to the Messianic Line and to
the Old Testament canon?
74. Summarize the comments of Whitelaw, Leupold, and
Moffatt, on Gen. 19:24.
7~. Who has commanded us to “remember Lot’s wife”?
What lessons are we to derive from the story of her
tragic end?
383

PART THIRTY-THREE
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB
(Genesis 20 : 1-2 1 : 34)
1. Abraham and Abimelecb (2 0 : 1 - 1 8 )
1 And Abraham joiwneyed from thence toward the
land of the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shcr;
and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah
his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar
sent, and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a
dream of the night, and said to him, Behold, tho% art but
a dead man, because of the woman whom thou hast taken;
for she is a man’s wife. 4 Now Abimelech had not come
near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay even a righteons
nation? 5 Said he not himself unto me, She is my sister?
and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the
integrity of my heart and the innocency of my hands
have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in the dream,
Yea, I know thrtt in the integrity of thy heart thou hast
done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against
me: therefore suffered 1 thee not to touch her. 7 Now
therefore restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and
be shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thmc
restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou,
and all that are thine.
8 And Abimelech rose early in the morning, and
called all his servants, and told all these things in their
ears: and the men were sore afraid. 9 Then Abimelech
called Abraham, and said unto him, What bast thou done
unto us? and whereiii have 1 sinned ggainsi thee, that thou
hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou
bast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. 10
And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou,
that thou hast done this thing? 11 And Abraham said,
Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this
3 84

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
place; aizd they will slay we for my wife’s sake. 12 And
moreouer she is indeed ivy sister, the daughter of my
I father, but not the daiighfer of my mother; and she
I
I
l
became my wife: 13 and it came to pass, wheii God caused
me to wander frow my father’s house, that I said unto
her, This is thy kindiiess which tho14 shalt show unto me:
at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is
my brother. 14 And Abiiizelech took shetp and oxen,
and men-servants and women-servants, and gave them
unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife. 1 Y And
AbZinelecb said, Behold, my land is before thee: dwell
where it pleaseth thee. 16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold,
I have given thy brother a fhousaiid pieces of silver: behold,
it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with
thee; and in respect of all thu art righted. 17 And
Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and
his wife, and his maid-servants; and they bare children.
18 For Jehovah had fast closed up all the wombs of the
house of Abimelech, because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.
(1) The Negeb, vs. 1, “the dry,” largely waterless
area, which from its geographical position generally south
of Judea came to be known as “the south,” “the land of
the south,” etc. (cf. Gen. 10:19, 12:9, 26:l-6). (See
Nelson Glueck’s great work, Rivers in the Desert). The
northern boundary may be indicated by a line drawn
roughly from Gaza to Beersheba, thence east directly to the
Dead Sea. The southern boundary can be indicated by a
line drawn from the highlands of the Sinai peninsula to the
head of the Gulf of Aqabah at Eilat. (This, incidentally,
is the line where the political division is drawn today).
Significant economically were the copper ores in the east-
ern part of the Negeb and the commerce which resulted
in the Arabah. Control of this industry explains the wars
of Saul with the Amalekites and Edomites (1 Sam. 14:47
ff.) , the victories of David over the Edomites (1 Ki. 11 : 1 $
385

20 : 1-2 1 : 34 GENESIS ’
ff.), the creation of the port of Ezion-geber by Solomon,
and later when these mines became too silted, the creation
of a new port at Elath by Uzziah (1 Ki. 9:26, 22:48; 2
Ki. 14:22). The persistent animosity of the Edomites was
motivated by the struggles to control this trade (cf. Ezek.
25 : 12, and the book of Obadiah). The “way of Shur”
crossed this area from the central highlands (really moun-
tains) of Sinai northeastward to Judea (Gen. 16:7, 20:1,
25:18; Exo. 15:22; Num. 33:8), the way followed by the
Patriarchs (Gen. 24:62, 26:22), by Hadad the Edomite
(1 Ki. 11:14, 17, 21, 22), and probably by Jeremiah in
escaping to Egypt (43:6-12), and later by Joseph and
Mary (Matt. 2:13-15). The route was dictated by the
zone of settled land in which the presence of well water
was so important; hence the frequent references to its
wells (Gen. 26:18-25; Josh. 15:18-19; Judg. 1:13-15).
See NBD, s.v.) This region, the Negeb, covers approxi-
mately one-half of the area of the state of modern Israel.
(2) Abraham’s Journey. Following the destruction
of the Cities of the Plain, Abraham pulled his stakes, so to
speak, and journeyed “toward the land of the South.”
Various reasons have been suggested as to the motive for
this journey, e.g., in consequence of the hostility of his
neighbors (Calvin); desire to escape from the scene of
such a terrible catastrophe which he had just witnessed
(Calvin, Murphy) ; impulsion by God, to remind him
that Canaan “was not intended for a permanent habita-
tion, but a constant pilgrimage” (Kalisch) ; but most
likely, it would seem, in search of pasture, as on a previous
occasion (Keil); cf. Gen. 12:9-10, 13:l. Arriving in the
land of the South, it seems that he ranged his herds from
Kadesh on the north (also Kadesh-barnea), some seventy
miles south of Hebron, to Shur, a wilderness lying at the
northwest tip of the Sinai peninsula (beside one of its
springs the Angel of Jehovah, it will be remembered, found
Hagar: cf. Gen. 16:7-14). (A wilderness in the Palestin-
386

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
ian country of the Biblical records meant a rather wild
region of scant vegetation, except at certain seasons when
rainfall provided temporary pasturage for the nomads’
flocks (cf. Psa. 106~9, A,R,V,, marginal rendering, pasture-
Zartd) . These wildernesses, unlike densely wooded wildernesses
of our Americas, were treeless, except for palm-trees
in the oases, bushes like acacia, and inferior trees like the
tamarisk (Exo. 15:27, Elim; Gen. 21:33). Because of its
aridity a wilderness in Scripture is sometimes called a
desert.)
(3) Gerar, aiid the Philistines.
Whatever the extent
to which Abraham pastured his flocks between Kadesh and
Shur, his more or less permanent tenting-ground must
have been in the vicinity of Gerar, a city forty miles
sautheast of Gaza in the foothills of the Judean mountains
(Gen. 1O:19), hence interior to the coastal plain, and
some distance from the route over which (by way of
Gaza) invading armies invariably have moved to and fro
between Egypt and Southwest Asia not only in ancient
times, but even in our own century. (It should be noted
that Armageddon lies on this military route, Rev. 16:16.
See under “Megiddo” in any Bible Dictionary). Both
Abraham and Isaac sojourned at Gerar (Gen., chs. 20, 21,
26), digging wells for their flocks. The city, we are told,
was situated in the “land of the Philistines’’ (Gen. 21:32,
34; 26:1, 8). This designation is said to be an anachronism:
“it could be ascribed to a late editor, for the Philistines
probably entered the land long after the time of Abraham”
(HSB, 3 1). Archaeological evidence,, however, proves that
this is not necessarily so. Cf. Schultz (OTS, 35) : “The
presence of the Philistines in Canaan during patriarchal
times has been considered an anachronism. The Caphtorian
settlement in Canaan around 1200 B.C. represented
a late migration of the Sea People who had made previous
settlements over a long period of time. The Philistines
had thus established themselves in smaller numbers long
3 87

20: 1-2 1 : 34 GENESIS
before 1500 B.C. In time they became amalgamated with
other inhabitants of Canaan, but the name ‘Palestine’
(Philistia) continues to bear witness to their presence in
Canaan. Caphtorian pottery throughout southern and
central Palestine, as well as literary references, testify to
the superiority of the Philistiries in arts and crafts, In the
days of Saul they monopolized metalwork in Palestine.”
(The Caphtorium are said to have descended from Mizraim,
Gen. 10:14, 1 Chron, 1:12; Caphtor is identified as the
land from which the Philistines came, Jer. 47:4, Amos 9:7.
The consensus of archaeological testimony in our day
almost without exception identifies these Sea Peoples as
spreading out over the eastern Mediterranean world from
Crete: at its height in the second millenium, Minoan Crete
controlled the larger part of the Aegean Sea.) The great
cities of the Philistines in “Philistia” of the Bible were (1)
those on the coastal strip, from north to south in the order
named, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza; (2) those in the
interior, Ekron on the north and Gath about the center
and approximately west of Hebron. Gerar, though not
one of the five great urban centers, was the seat of the
royal iron smelting place producing iron swords, spearheads,
daggers, and arrowheads (1 Sam. 13 : 19-22). Pottery
models of iron-shod chariots have been found here. These
people seem to have settled in Palestine in great numbers
about the time of the transition from the Bronze Age to
the Iron Age (cf. Judg. 16:21) ; this would have been
about 1500 B.C. Archaeology now confirms the fact that
groups of these Sea Peoples began arriving in waves long
before this time; that in fact these smaller migratory
groups were in the Near East as early as the Patriarchal
Age. Excavations at Gerar and other Philistine centers
began as early as the nineteen-twenties, under the direction
of Phythian-Adams and Flinders Pe trie : these produced
remains from the time of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty,
about 1600 to 1400 B.C. Recently an Israeli archaeologist,
388

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 2O:l-21:34
D, Alon, surveyed the site of Gerar and “found evidence
from potsherds that the city had enjoyed a period of
prosperity during the Middle Bronze Age, the period of the
Biblical patriarchs” (DISCT:DBA, 25 1). Cornfeld (AtD,
72) gives a consistent account of this problem of the
origin of the Philistines in the Near East, as follows: “This
designation [.‘Philistine’] is generally regarded as anachron-
istic because the name Philistine was applied to a Western
people (Peoples of the Sea) which had migrated from
Crete and the Aegean coastlands and isles around 1200
B.C.E., and settled in the coastal regions of southern Pales-
tine. C. H. Gordon and I. Grinz consider that these ‘early’
Philistines of Gerar came from a previous migration of sea
people from the Aegean and Minoan sphere, including
Crete, which is called Caphtor in the Bible and Ugarit
tablets, and Caphtorian is the Canaanite name for Minoan.
Their earlier home was that other great cultural center of
antiquity, the Aegean, which flourished throughout the
2nd millenium B.C.E., and is considered a major cradle
of East Mediterranean, Near Eastern and European civiliza-
tion. It has a close connection with the Hittite civilization,
which stems also from an Indo-European migration into
this sphere. This civilization spread by trade, navigation,
and migration to Asia Minor, North Canaan (Ugarit, etc.) ,
South Canaan (Gerar). The early Philistines who came
into contact with the early Hebrews, and the Mycenaeans
of proto-historic Greece, to whom the most prominent
Homeric heroes belonged, were different sections of this
Minoan (Caphtorian) world, By the time of the Amarna .
Age, or late patriarchal age, these immigrants formed an
important segment of the coastal dwellers of Canaan.
Vestiges of Aegeo-Minoan art, pottery, and tools abound
in archaeological finds of this period. The art is remark-
able for its vivacity and it injected a notable degree of
liveliness into the art of the Near East, including Egypt.
3 89

20 : 1-2 1 3 4 GENESIS .I
The most important role of Caphtor +as its impact on both
the classic Greeks of a later period and the early Canaan-
ites, so that the earliest Greek, Canaanite (Ugarit) and
Hebrew literatures have a common denominator in the
Minoan or Caphtorian factor. We shall see that the early
histories of the Hebrew and pre-Hellenic settlements and
migrations on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean, were
originally interrelated in certain ways and that the classic
traditions of Greece and the treasures of the Near East
will illumine each other. C. H Gordon maintains that
‘the epic traditions of Israel starting with the patriarchal
narratives are set in Palestine after the penetrations of the
Indo-European Philistines from the west and the Indo-
European Hittites from the north. When the Bible portrays
Abraham as dealing with Hittites and Philistines, we have
a correct tradition insofar as Hebrew history dawned in a
partially Indo-Europeanized Palestine. This is reflected
in Hebraic literature and institutions from the start.’
The early Caphltorian migration was one of a long serics
that had established various Caphtorian folk on the shores
of Canaan long before 1500 B.C.E. Thy had becme
Canaanitized, and apparently spoke the same language as
Abraham and Isaac. They generally behaved peacefully,
unlike the Philistines of a later day, who fought and
molested the Israelites. They were recognized in Canaan
as the masters of arts and crafts, including metdlurgy”
(italics mine-C. C.). These facts account also for the
spread of the Cult of Fertility throughout the Near East.
It is generally held by anthropologists that Crete was the
center where this cult originated and from which it spread
in every direction, through the Near East especially.
(4) Abimelech. The facts stated above give us a
clearer understanding of this man who was king of the
city-state of Gerar when Abraham moved into the area.
The name, which means “father-king,” is pure Hebrew,
390

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 2O:l-21:34
and apparently was the common title-rather than per-
sonal name-of the kings of Gerar, as Pharaoh, for example,
was of the rulers of Egypt, Agag of the kings of the
Amalekites (1 Sam. Ir), Caesar of the emperors of Rome
(whence such later titles as K~iser, Czar, etc.), This fact
makes it entirely plausible that the Abimelech who cove-
nanted with Isaac later (Gen. 26) was a successor to the
Abimelech who had dealings with Abraham. The latter
evidently sought out Abraham on the patriarch’s arrival
within the region of which his capital, Gerar, was the
dominant city. We must realize that the nomads of
Abraham’s time were not wanderers all the time; rather,
they alternated between periods of migration and periods
of a more or less settled life. Because water was precious
and the nomadic sheiks had to have it for their flocks,
they had to hunt out the area where water-usually from
wells-was available. Abraham was of this class. Cornfeld
suggests that Abimelech visited Abraham somewhere in
the locality, probably for the purpose of concluding a
treaty of mutual protection that would safeguard his de-
scendants from Israelite encroachments. It may well be
also that he took Sarah into his harem, not especially
because he was infatuated with her beauty (she was now
ninety years old: cf. 17:17, 21:2) but for the very same
purpose of cementing an alliance with this wealthy and
influential patriarch. As a matter of fact, on comparing
the motives and actions of these two men, it will strike
most of us, I think, that Abraham’s conduct, generally
speaking, was below the level of integrity manifested by
the Philistine king. Certainly Abimelech’s role in the
entire transaction supports the view stated above that
these early Philistines, unlike those of later times, as a
general rule behaved honorably and peacefully. Cf. Jamie-
son (CECG, 166) : “These early Philistines were a settled
population, who occupied themselves for the most part in
the peaceful pursuits of agriculture and keeping cattle.
391

2 0 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS .: ’
They were far superior in civilization and refinement to
the Canaanicish tribes around them,? and this polish they
doubtless owed to their Egyptian origin.” (This author
holds that they had once been connected with the shepherd
kings who ruled in lower Egypt (Deut. 2:23), and had on
their expulsion occupied the pasture .lands which lay along
its northern border. It seems, howeyer, that their original
Cretan origin has by now been firmly established.)
(f ) Abimelech’s Dream (VV. 3 -7). Uedoubtediy it
was in the course of an earlier meeting between Abimelech
and Abraham that the patriarch repeated the equivoca-
tion he had perpetrated previously on the Egyptian Pharaoh
(cf. Gen. 12: 10-20), namely, the declaration that Sarah
was his sister, a declaration which Sarah herself confirmed
(v. r), as a consequence of which Abimelech took her
into his harem. Whereupon, to protect the purity of the
promised seed, God “closed up all the wombs of house of
Abimelech,” that is, by preventing conception (cf. 16:2,
Isa. 66:9, 1 Sam. l:f-6), or by producing barrenness (cf.
29: 3 1, 30:22). The reaction of Abimelech surely proves
that his moral life was far above the level of the idolatrous
Canaanites who occupied the land and makes it possible for
us to understand why God deigned to reveal Himself to
him.
The dream was the usual mode of self-revelation by
which God (as Elohim) communicated with heathen. (Cf.
Pharaoh’s dreams (Gen. 41 : 1) , Nebuchadnezzar’s (Dan.
4: f ) , as distinguished from the visions and dreams in which
Jehovah maniPested His presence to His people. Cf. theo-
phanies (visible appearances of deity) vouchsafed to Abra-
ham (12:7, 15:1, 18:1), and to Jacob (28:13, 32:24),
and the visions granted to Daniel (Dan. 7:l-28, 10:5-9),
and to the prophets generally, “which, though sometimes
occurring in dreams, were yet a higher form of Divine
manifestation than the dreams” (PCG, 264). (Note that
Pharaoh’s butler and baker (Gen. 40:8), the Midianites
3 92

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20: 1-21 :34
(Judg. 7:13-15), tlie’wife of Pilate (Matt. 27:19), ex-
perienced significant dreams,) (Cf. also the vision granted
Isaiah of the “Lord sitting upon a throne’) (Isa. 6:l-J) ;
Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:9-11) ;
the visions of the Living One, of the Door opened in
heaven, of the Temple of God in heaven, and of the New
Heaven and New Earth, all vouchsafed John the Beloved
of the isle of Patmos (Rev. 1:18, 4:1, 11:19) 21:1), all of
these together, in their various details) making up the con-
tent of the Apocalypse.) The fact that God communicated
with Abimelech in a dream is sufficient evidence that the
latter was in some sense a believer, one who apparently
feared God; however, he must have had only a limited
knowledge of God, because the dream, as stated above,
was “a mode employed for those standing on a lower level
of revelation)) (EG, 582). Note the conversation which
occurred by means of this dream: (1) God explains that
Abimelech had done a deed worthy of death, viz., he had
taken another man’s wife from her husband for his own
purposes) whereas he should have honored the sanctity of
the marriage bond (nothing was said about the other
members of the king’s harem, but God’s silence must not
be taken as approval) cf. Acts 17:30); (2) Abimelech
answered by stating his fear that lie, or even his subjects)
however innocent in this case, might as a consequence of
his sin (cf. 2 Sam. 24:17, 1 Chron. 21:17, Jer. 15:4)) be
destroyed as the Sodomites had been destroyed; he then
protested his innocence) in view of the fact that both
Abraham and Sarah had represented themselves to him as
brother and sister; (3) whereupon God recognized the
fact of the king’s innocence and explained why he in turn
-as an act of benevolence-had ihposed a physical afflic-
tion on him to prevent his laying hands on the mother of
the Child of Promise. (4) Finally) God ordered Abimelech
to restore Sarah to her husband, “for he is a prophet, and
he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live,” etc. Note
393

20 : 1-2 1 : 34 GENESIS
(1) that Abraham was divinely declared to be a prophet,
that is, an interpreter (communicator) of the will of God
(Ps. 105:1~, Amos 3:7, 2 Pet. 1:21), one who speaks by
divine afflatus (Deut. 13:2, 18:15-19; Judg. 6:8, 1 Sam.
9:9, 1 Ki. 22:7) either to announce the will of God to men
(Exo. 4:15, 7:l) or to intercede with God for men (Gen.
20:7; Jer. 7:16, 11:14, 14:ll); (2) that he, Abraham,
would pray for Abimelech (1 Sam. 7:5, Job. 42:s); (3)
that failing to make the required restitution, the king and
all that were his would surely die. “Whatever the nature
of a revelation by means of a dream may be, it surely
allows for an interchange of thoughts-questions and answers,
remarks and responses” (EG, 585). This teaches
us, says Leupold, that “sin is sin and involves guilt, even
when the perpetrator may have sinned in ignorance; such
ignorance does constitute an extenuating circumstance;
God acknowledges that here” (EG, 586). (God has often
intimated His mind in dreams: cf. Gen. 28:12, 31:24,
37:5, 40:8, 41:l; 1 Ki. 3:51; Jer. 23, 21, 28, 32; Dan.
2:1, 4:5).
(6) Abraham’s Explanatioiz.
Abimelech lost no time
in setting things right, both in the understanding of his
servants, and in the mind and heart of Abraham, protest-
ing that the patriarch had brought on him and his king-
dom near-disaster: “thou hast done deeds unto me that
ought not to be done.” Abraham, apparently feeling a
sense of guilt, accounted for his action on three grounds:
(1) he surmised that the fear of God had been lost here
as elsewhere throughout Canaan (undoubtedly a reaction
from the awful scenes of the divine judgment on Sodom
and Gomorrah) ; (2) he hd not spoken a verbal untruth
in declaring Sarah to be his sister; she was indeed his half-
sister; (3) the action had been the result of a preconcerted
arrangement between Sarah and himself, agreed upon at
the time their wanderings began. (The patriarch attempts
no self-justification, no exculpation: he simply states the
3 94

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20: 1-21 : 34
facts,) The view that Abraham’s statement in v. 12 is
directly related to his statement in v. 11, is entirely plaus-
ible; that is, as if Abraham was saying, “I spoke the truth
about moral corruption in this place, because if the people
had really teen godfearing, they would have asked whether
Sarah was also my wife, since one could marry his half-
sister from the one father.” The statement of the text
indicates clearly that Sarah was her husband’s half -sister,
ie., Terah’s daughter by another wife than Abraham’s
mother. “On the earlier levels of the development of the
human race such closer relationships of those married were
often necessary and so not abhorred as they came to be
later. The Mosaic law would not allow such connections;
see Lev. 18:9, 11; 20:17; Deut. 27:22. Whom Terah had
first married or perhaps married after he had married
Abraham’s mother, we cannot determine” (EG, 5 89-590).
(7) Abinzelecb’s Response (vv. 14-16). The king
carried out the divine instructions. He gave Sarah tack to
Abraham with a liberal present of sheep, cattle and serv-
ants, and gave the patriarch permission to dwell wherever
he pleased in his, Abimelech’s, land. He gave Abraham
also a thousand shekels of silver: this was usually of the
character of a purchase-price for a wife; here, however, it
seems to have teen a compensation for injury unwittingly
inflicted. To Sarah he said, “It is for thee a covering of
the eyes,” that is, not for a veil which she was to procure
for this amount, but as an atoning gift. “In reskect of
all thou art righted”: the general sense seems to be that
Sarah’s honor was now fully rehabilitated.
(8) Abraham’s Prayer (vv. 17-18). The patriarch
forthwith interceded in prayer for Abimelech and his
people (cf. his intercessory prayer for SodAm and Go-
morrah), As a result all the members of the king’s court
were now made capable of resuming their marital relations:
coitzLs which had been temporarily suspended was now
restored. This entire incident obviously was for the purpose
395

“ 20:1-21:34 GENESIS
of protecting the purity of the promised seed. “In king
Abimelech we meet with a totally different character from
that of Pharaoh, We see in him a heathen imbued with a
moral consciousness of right, and open to receive divine
revelation, of which there is not the slightest trace in the
king of Egypt, And Abraham, in spite of his natural
weakness, and the consequent confusion which he mani-
fested in the presence of the pious heathen, was exalted by
the compassionate grace of God to the position of His own
friend, so that even the heathen king, who seems to have
been in the\right in this instance, was compelled to bend
before him and to seek the removal of the divine punish-
ment, which had fallen upon him and his house, through
the medium of his intercession. In this way God proved
to the Philistine king, on the one hand, that He suffers
no harm to befall His prophets (Psa.‘ loJ:lJ), and to
Abraham on the other, that He can maintain His Cove-
nant and secure the realization of His promise against all
opposition from the sinful desires of earthly potentates.
It was in this respect that the event possessed a typical
significance in relation to the future attitude of Israel
towards surrounding nations” (BCOTP, 242, 243).
(9) Comfiarison of Gen. 12:lO-20 and Gen. 2O:l-18.
Alleged differences in these two narratives is taken by the
“analytical” critics as evidence of a weaving together of
two original sources, J and E. (As a matter of fact this
theme of a sister-wife relationship occurs again ifi Gen.
26:6-11: in the first instance, involving Abraham-Pharaoh-
Sarah; in the second, Abraham-Abimelech-Sarah, and in
the third, Isaac-Abimelech-Rebekah) . By the critics this
chapter (20) is assumed to be an Elohistic document; then
how account for the “Jehovah” of v. 18? The answer is
that v. 18 demonstrates the “fine propriety” one often
encounters in relating these two names. V. 18 states
Yahweh’s method of rendering the mother of the promised
seed safe: “the faithful covenant God in mercy watches
396

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
over the mother of the child of the covenant”; hence this
verse is the complement essential to explaining v, 17. Other
authorities explain that in v. 3, we have Elohivz without
the article, that is, Deity generally; but Rbimelech recog-
nizes the Lord, Adonai, i.e., God (v. 4); whereupon the
historian represents Him as Elobim with the article, that
is, the personal and true God, as speaking to him (Delitzsch,
BCOTP, 240). Cf, Green (UBG, 2jl, 212) : “The critics
have mistaken the lofty style used in describing grand
creative acts or the vocabulary employed in setting forth
the universal catastrophe of the deluge for the fixed habit
of an Elohist writer, and set it over against the graceful
style of the ordinary narrative in the early Jehovist sections.
But in this chapter and in the rest of Genesis, whenever
Elohim occurs in narrative sections, the stately periods of
the account of the creation and the vocabulary of the
creation and the flood are dropped, and terms appropriate
to the common affairs of life and the ordinary course of
human events are employed by the Elohist precisely as
they are by the Jehovist. Elohim occurs throughout this
chapter (vs. 3, 6, 11, 12, 17), except in the last verse
(v. 18) where Jehovah is used. But the words and phrases
are those which are held to be characteristic of the Je-
hovist.” Thus do the critics nullify their own “assured
results.”
Again, the question is raised by the critics, Why the
specific’ inclusion of the elaboration by Abraham as re-
gards his motivation in dealing with Abirnelech, as dis-
tinguished from the narrative of his dealing with Pharaoh?
That is to say, is there a reason for the explanation to
Abimelech that his wife was in reality a half-sister in view
of the fact that no such explanation was vouchsafed‘the
king of Egypt? Obviously, there is a reason for this
difference. Again, note Green (UBG, 257, n.) : ::Abraham
says of his wife at the outset, ‘She is my sister’ (v. 2). ; In
and of itself this is quite intelligible; and a Hebrew narrator
3 97

20 : 1-2 1 : 34 GENESIS
would certainly have told this more plainly, if he had not
on a like occasion stated in more detail what moved Abraham
to it (12:~ 1-13). WBS it necessary now to repeat it
here? The rapidity with which he hastens on to the fact
itself shows what he presupposes in the reader. But while
in the first event of the kind (cf. 12), in Egypt, the narrator
briefly mentions Pharaoh’s gifts and plagues, he sets
forth in more detail the cause of Abraham’s conduct.
The reader might certainly be surprised that the same
thing could happen twice to Abraham. The narrator is
coinscious of this; and in order to remove every doubt of
this sort which might so easily arise, he lets Abraham clear
up the puzzle in what he says to Abimelech (vs. 11-13).
Thus the narrator himself meets every objection that could
be made, and by the words, ‘when God caused me to wander
from my father’s house’ (v. 13), he looks back so plainly
over all thus far related, and at the same time indicates so
exactly the time when he first thought of passing his wife
off as his sister, everywhere in foreign lands, that this can
only be explained from the previous narrative in ch. 12.”
Certainly there are similarities between this episode
and those recorded in Genesis 12 and Genesis 26. However,
as Leupold writes (EG, 579): “It is foolish to claim the
identity of the incidents on the ground that they merely
represent three different forms of the original event, forms
assumed while being transmitted by tradition. Critics
seem to forget that life just happens to be so strange a
thing that certain incidents may repeat themselves in the
course of one life, or chat the lives of children often constitute
a strange parallel to those of their parents.” Smith-
Field (OTH, 79) “Here the deceit which Abraham had
put upon Pharaoh, by calling Sarah his sister, was acted
again with the like result. The repeated occurrence of
such an event, which will meet us again in the history of
Isaac, can surprise no one acquainted with Oriental manners;
but it would have been indeed surprising if the author
398

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 2O:l-21:34
of any but a genuine narrative had exposed himself to a
charge so obvious as that which has been founded on its
repetition. The independent truth of each story is con-
firmed by the natural touches of variety; such as, in the
case before us, Abimelech’s keen but gentle satire in recorn-
mending Sarah to buy a veil with the thousand pieces of
silver which he gave to her husband, We may also observe
the traces of the knowledge of the true God among Abi-
melech and his servants (Gen. 20:9-11) .” Green (UBG,
258, n.): “The circumstances are different in the two
narratives. Here Abimelech makes Abraham a variety of
presents after he understood the affair; there, Pharaoh
before he understood it. Here God Himself appears; there
He simply punishes. Here Abraham is called a prophet (v.
7), as he could not have been at once denominated when
God had but just called him, The circumstances, the
issue, and the description differ in many respects, and thus
attest that this story is quite distinct from the former one.”
(Green quotes the foregoing from a work by the dis-
tinguished scholar, Ewald, Die Komposition der Genesis
Kritiscb untersucht, 1823).
The following summarization by Leupold (EG, 579-
580) of the striking differences is conclusive, it seems to
the writer: “Note the following six points of difference:
two different places are involved, Egypt and Philistia;
two different monarchs of quite different characters, one
idolatrous, the other, who fears the true God; different
circumstances prevail, a famine on the one hand, nomadic
migration on the other; different modes of revelation are
employed-the one kind surmises the truth, the other re-
ceives revelation in a dream; the patriarch’s reaction to
the accusation is quite different in the two instances in-
volved-in the first, silence; then in the second instance,
a free explanation before a king of sufficient spiritual
discernment; lastly, the conclusions of the two episodes are
radically different from one another-in the first instance,
399

2O:l-21:34 GENESIS
dismissal from the land; in the second, an invitation to stay
in the land. We are compelled, therefore, to reverse the
critical verdict: ‘it is impossible to doubt that the two are
variants of the same tradition.’ We have here two distinct,
though similar, events,”
Haley (ADB, 26) : “A favorite exegetical principle
adopted by some of these critics appears to be, that similar
events are necessarily ideniical. Hence, when they read
that Abraham twice equivocated concerning his wife ; that
Isaac imitated his example; that David was twice in peril
in a certain wilderness, and twice spared Saul’s life in a
cave, they instantly assume that in each Case these double
narratives are irreconcilable accounts of one and the same
event. The absurdity of such a canon of criticism is obvi-
ous from the fact that history is ful2 of events which. more
or less closely resemble one another. Take, as a well-known
example the case of the two Presidents Edwards, father and
son. Both were named Jonathan Edwards, and were the
grandsons of clergymen. ‘Both were pious in their youth,
were distinguished scholars, and were tutors for equal
periods in the colleges where they were respectively edu-
cated. Both were settled in the ministry as successors to
their maternal grandfathers, were dismissed on account of
their religious opinions, and again settled in retired country
towns, over congregations singularly attached to them,
where they had leisure to pursue their favorite studies,
and to prepare and publish their valuable works. Both
were removed from these stations to become presidents of
colleges, and both died shortly after their respective in-
augurations; the one in the fifty-sixth, and the other in
the fifty-seventh year of his age; each having preached,
on the first Sabbath of the year of his death, on the-text:
‘This year thou shalt die.’” (From Memoir prefixed to
the Words of Edwards the younger, p. 34. Cf. also 1 Sam.
23:19, 26:l; 1 Sam. 24:6, 26:9, with Gen. 12:19, 20:2,
26:7.) Haley (ibid, 27, n.): “Observe that no one of the
400

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
above cases [in Genesis1 bears, in respect to poZnts of
coiizcidence, worthy of comparison with this unquestioned
instance in modern times.” Again (ibid., 3 17) : “We have
elsewhere seen that distant events may bear a very close
resemblance. A late rationalist concedes that ‘in those rude
times, such a circumstance might have been repeated,’ and
that the ‘dissimilarities of the two cases render their iden-
tity doubtful.’ In king Abimelech, says Keil, we meet
with a totally different character from that of Pharaoh.
We see in the former a heathen imbued with a moral
consciousness of right, and open to receive divine revela-
tion, of which there is not the slightest trace in the king
of Egypt. The two cases were evidently quite distinct.”
Again: “Whereas Abraham makes no reply to Pharaoh’s
stinging indictment (12:2O), he has here a great deal to
say to Abimelech in self -defense (20 : 1 1 - 13 ) .” In passing,
it: should be noted that Sarah was some sixty-five years old,
in the encounter with Pharaoh. As a “noble nomadic
princess,” undoubtedly she had led a healthful life with a
great measure of freedom. (Haley, ibid., 318): “In con-
trast to the swarthy, ugly, early-faded Egyptian women,
she possessed no doubt great personal attraction. In the
second instance, when she was some ninety years of age,
nothing is said as to her beauty. Abimelech was influenced,
not by Sarah’s personal charms, but simply by a desire to
‘ally himself with Abraham, the rich nomad prince’ ” (as
Delitzsch puts it).
2. “New Light” on Abraham’s “Deceptions”
(Explanatory: I have purposely withheld, for presen-
tation at this point, certain evidence from recent archae-
ological findings which throws an entirely new light on
Abraham’s conduct toward Pharaoh and Abimelech, and
have “gone along,” so to speak, with the traditional con-
cept of Abraham’s “deceptions.” It must be admitted
that these do not portray the patriarch in a favorable light.
On the basis of this viewpoint of his motives, perhaps the
40 1

20 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS
best that could be said by way of extenuation is the fol-
lowing comment by Leupold (EG, 593): “If the case in
hand is to be approached from the moral angle, then it is
seen to offer an illustration how even with God’s best saints
susceptibility to certain sins is not overcome by a single
effort. These men of God, too, had their besetting sins
and prevailing weaknesses. The repetition of the fall of
Abraham under very similar circumstances, instead of
constituting grounds for criticism should rather be re-
garded as a touch entirely true to life” (EG, 193).
Dr. E. A. Speiser, in his excellent work on Genesis
(Anchor Bible Series) presents an entirely different picture,
as derived from Hurrian (Horite) customary law. The
Horites evidently were a mixture of Semitic and Indo-
European peoples who occupied East Central Mesopotamia.
The chief center of Hurrian culcture was Nuzi, which was
east of the Tigris not too far southeast of Nineveh. (An-
other important center of archaeological findings was Mari,
the center of the Amorite civilization; Mari was on the
bend of the Euphrates, some distance northwest of Babylon,
a region in which the city of Haran was located, which
according to Genesis was the home of Abraham’s kinsmen.)
The Hurrian culture was not known until 1928-1929 when
the Nuzi cuneiform documents (some 20,000 in number)
were discovered. As a result we know that these people
had some strange customs having to do with the sister-wife
rela tionship.
Dr. Speiser writes (ABG, Intro., 39 ff.): “Among
the various patriarchal themes in Genesis, there are three
in particular that exhibit the same blend of uncommon
features: each theme appears to involve some form of de-
ception; each has proved to be an obstinate puzzle to
countless generations of students, ancient and modern; and
at the ‘same time, each was seemingly just as much of an
enigma to the Biblical writers themselves.” These three
are specifically: the problem of the sister-wife relationship
402

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
(Abraham and Sarah), that of the transfer of the birthright
and the paternal blessing (as from Esau to Jacob),
and that of a father’s disposition of his household gods
(images, Gen, 31:19-30). (It is the first of these problems
which we deal with here; the other two will be taken
up in connection with their appearance in the Scripture
text.) Involved in most of these instances are the laws of
inheritance, especially those involved in adoption, and
certain legal phraseology in some cases. Discoveries at
Nuzi have shed a flood of light on these problems. The
difficulty involved,. however, is that of ascertaining the
extent to which Abraham was familiar with this Hurriaiz
customary lm. Traditionally, Abraham has been regarded
as resorting to deception to “save his skin,’’ in the three
instances in Genesis in which he is represented as introducing
his wife as his sister, primarily because the twohusband
and wife-felt that this half-truth and half-lie was
necessary to protect them from the erotic habits of their
pagan neighbors. As we have already seen, the three
occurrences 2 this episode have been used by the critics
as an argument for the composite (documentary) authorship
of the Pentateuch. NOW, according to the light shed
on the problem in the Nuzi documents, it was the custom
among those of the higher social caste there (the nobility)
for a husband to adopt his wife as his sister. This was
designedly for social standing. Speiser (ABG, intro., 40) :
“In Hurrian society a wife enjoyed special standing and
protection when the law recognized her simulctaneously as
her husband’s sister, regardles of blood ties. Such cases are
attested by two separate legal documents, one dealing with
the marriage and the other with the woman’s adoption as
sister. This dual role conferred on the wife a superior
position in society.’’ The idea seems to have been that,
under an old fratriarchal system, a sister had privileges
that wives generally did not have. Hence, when Abraham
403

20: 1-21 :34 GENESIS
said of Sarah, “She is my sister,” and Sarah said in turn of
Abraham, “He is my brother,” this meant that they were,
in a sense, untouchable. But, as this interpretation indi-
cates, when they made these representations to Pharaoh,
they found them of no avail. On the other hand, as this
was their best defense under Hurrian law, it would seem
that Abimelech was acquainted with that particular law
and hence respected the position of Sarah. The same must
also be true of the Abimelech who figured in the case of
Isaac and Rebekah. Speiser concludes (ibid.) that in the
context of the customary law involved, Abraham and
Sarah were perfectly honorable in their representations.
Obviously, there are some serious objections to this
general interpretation. In the first place, why were the
representations made by Abraham and Sarah to the Egyp-
tian king accepted at face value with the result that he
took Sarah into his harem? It must be true, of course,
that he had no such knowledge of the Hurrian law govern-
ing the case. It is said, however, that Pharaoh’s conduct
must have been due to the fact that in Egyjt the role of
sister wus not highly regarded. The difficulty with this
explanation is the fact that it is not in harmony with what
is known about Egyptian history and culture. (The reader
is advised to read Dr. Mill Durant’s great work, Our
Oriental Heritage, pp. 164-170, for reliable information
about these matters.) Writes Dr. Durant: “Very often the
king married his own sister-occasionally his daughter-to
preserve the purity of the royal blood . . . the institution
of sister-marriage spread among the people, and as late as
the second century after Christ two thirds of the citizens
of Arsinoe were found to be practising the custom. The
words brother and sister, in Egyptian poetry, have the same
significance as lover and beloved among ourselves. . . . ‘No
people, ancient or modern,’ said Max Muller, ‘has given
women so high a legal status as did the inhabitants of the
404

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
Nile Valley,’ . , . It is likely that this high status of
woman arose from the mildly matriarchal character of
Egyptian society. Not only was woman full mistress in
the house, but all estates descended in the female line. . , ,
Men married their sisters not because familiarity bred
romance, but because they wished to enjoy the family in-
heritance,” etc. (pp 164-1 66) . Obviously, then, Abra-
ham’s device could have worked in Egypt only if the
Pharaoh was familiar with Hurrian law and was willing
to acknowledge it binding in his realm. But both of these
conditions seem most unlikely.
Then, what about Abimelech? Was he aware of this
Hurrian law, as far as “Philistia’’ was from far eastern
Mesopotamia? It is possible that he could have been
familiar with it. But, again, the opposite would seem to
have been the truth. And again we have the difficulty of
explaining why Abimelech would have been influenced
by such a custom had he even known of it.
As for the Genesis story, the causes and effects in-
volved are plainly presented, The truthfulness of the
Genesis accounts of these sister-wife representations is in
strict harmony with the realism of the whole Bible. And
finally, the application of the Hurrian law to these cases
necessitates certain pre-suppositions, namely, ( 1 ) that the
redactors (apparently the possibility of Mosaic authorship
is ignored) were completely ignorant of the Hurrian
custom; (2) that in trying to weave together alleged
varied traditions of one and the same original event, they
allowed unexplainable inconsistencies to creep into the
Genesis text; (3) that they must have experienced con-
siderable embarrassment in portraying the revered patriarch
and his wife as practising equivocation “to save their own
skins”; that they were prompted to introduce in each case
what was known in ancient times as the deus ex machina,
&e.) the obtrusion of divine judgment to produce under-
40 S

20 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS
standing, repentance and restitution on the part of the
monarchs involved. Finally, and most serious of all, not
only is the possibility of Mosaic authorship ignored, but
even the Possibility of Divine inspiration-verbal, dynamic,
m even supervisoy--is completely disregarded.
The facts of the matter are, from the present author’s
point of view, that the narratives under consideration in
Genesis are three different accounts of three different
originals; and that the accounts, as they stand, are com-
pletely in line with Biblical realism. The Bible is the
most realistic book in the world. It pictures life just as
men have lived it in the past and as they live it now. It is
pre-eminently the Book of Life. It portrays both their
vices and virtues, their fears and their triumphs, their
temptations and frailties as well as their victories of faith.
The very first principle of Biblical interpretation is that
the Bible should be allowed to mean what it says and to
say what it means, without benefit of over-reaching ana-
lytical criticism or the gobbledygook of speculative the-
ology. This is simply the application of the practical norm
of “calling Bible things by Bible names.”
3. The Birth of the Promised Heir (21:1-7)
1 And Jehovah visited Sarah as he bad said, and Je-
hovah did unto Sarah as he had spoken. 2 And Sarah
conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the
set time of which God had spoken to him. 3 And Abra-
ham called the name of his son thut was born urcto hinz,
whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. 4 And Abraham circum-
cised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God bad
commanded him. I And Abrahstm was a hndred years
old, when his son Isaac was born unto him. 6 And Sarah
said, God bath made me to laugh; every me that bearefib
will laugh with me. 7 And she suid, Who wodd have
said unto Abraham, that Surab should give children suck?
for I have borne him a son in his old age.
406

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
Vv. 1, 2-Yahweh “visited” Sarah, that is, fulfilled
His promise at the set time He had promised to do so: our
God keeps His promises to the very letter. (Cf. Gen,
17:21; 18:10, 14). Sarah “bare Abraham a son in his old
age: all sources emphasize the fact that Isaac was a late-
born child” (Skinner, ICCG, 321). And Abraham called
the son’s name Isaac, Le,, Laughter (cf. 17:17, 18:12).
The son was “so called because of his father’s believing and
his mother’s unbelieving laughter at the promise of his
birth, and because of their great joy now at the fulfillment
of it” (21:6; cf. Isa. 54:l). The birth, naming and cir-
cumcision of Isaac were in accord with Gen. 17:19, 12.
Ishmael had been circumcised previously at the age of
thirteen (17:ZJ). Abraham was now 100 years old: thus
he had waited twenty-five years for the fulfillment of the
promise (cf. 12:S)-a remarkable instance of faith and
patience (Rom. 4:20); and thus Isaac’s birth was a re-
markable demonstration of divine power (Rom. 4:20, Heb.
11 : 11 -12). The several instaiices of miraculous concep-
tion mentioned in Scripture are the following: Sarah (Heb.
11:ll); Rebekah (Gen. 2J:21) ; Rachel (Gen, 30:22) j
Manoah’s wife (Judg. 13:3-24) ; Hannah (1 Sam. 1 :19,
20); Elisabeth (Luke 1:24, 25, 36, 37, 58); and Mary, by
the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:31-35).
4. The Expulsion of the Bondwoman and Her So*
(VV. 8-21)
8 And the child grew, a d was weaized: and Abraham
made a great feast or?. the day that Isaac was weaned. 9
And Smrh saw the soiz of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she
bad borne unto Abraham, mockiizg. IO Wherefore she said
unto Abraham, Cast out this handmaid and her son: for
the son of this hmdmaid shall not be heir with my scm,
euen with Isaac. 11 And the thiitg was very grievous in
Abraham’s sight on account of his son. 12 And God said
wnto Abraham, Let it not be grevious in thy sight because
407

20: 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS
of the lad, and because of thy handmaid; in all that Sarah
saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall
thy seed be called. 13 And also of the son of the hand-
maid will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. 14 And
Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and
a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on
her showlder, and gave her the child, and sent her away;
and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-
sheba. 15 And the water in the bottle was spent, and she
cast the child under one of the shrubs. 16 And she went,
and sat her down over against him a good wl~y off, as it
were a bowskot: fm she said, Let me not look upm the
death of the child. And she sat over against him, mad lifted
up her voice, and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of
the lad; and the angel of God called to Hfigar wt of
heaven, and said unto her, What ailetb thee, Hagar? fear
not; for God bath beard the voice of the lad where he is.
18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thy hand; for
I will make him. a great nation. 19 And God apene& her
eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled
the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. 20 And
God was with the lad, and he grew; and he dwelt in the
wilderness, and became, as he grew up, an archer. 21 And
he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took
him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
(1) Sarah’s Anger (vv. 8-10),
V. 8-Isaac weaned
-at about the age of three. The feast was the customary
celebration of the occasion of the weaning of a child. The
age of weaning in modern Palestine is from two to three
years; in acient Israel it must have been later, at Ieast in
some instances (Cf. 1 Sam. 1:22, 2 Mac. 7:27ff.). “The
weaning was always regarded as a joyous occasion, as we
find with Samuel, who on being weaned was taken by his
mother to the Tabernacle at Shiloh” (SC, 103): (cf. 1
Sam. 1:22ff.). V. 9-Sarah saw Hagar’s son mocking.
40 8

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20;1-21:34
Other versions (LXX, Vulgate, JB) gave it “playing with
her son Isaac.” Leupold translates: “Sarah observed that
the son of the Egyptian woman Hagar, whom she had
borne to Abraham, was (always) mocking”: the fre-
quentative particple is used here, says this writer. “Another
allusion to Isaac’s name, cf. 17:17f.; the one verb means
‘to laugh’ and ‘to play’” (JB, 37, n,). The recently
published Hebrew commentary (SC, 103 -1 04) reads:
ccmaking sport: the verb denotes idolatry (cf. Exod. 32:6),
immorality (cf. 39:17), or murder (cf. 2 Sam. 2:14f.) ; in
all these passages the same or a similar verb occurs, and in
the last-mentioned the meaning is to fight to the death.
Also, he quarreled with Isaac about the inheritance, claim-
ing he would be the heir as the eldest son; this follows from
Sarah’s insistence in the next verse that he should not be
co-heir with Isaac. . . . Ishmael derided Isaac and jeered
at the great feast, and Sarah resented that the son of a
bondmaid should presume to do this, which explains her
allusion to his lowly parentage.’’ Skinner (ICCG, 322)
certainly disagrees: “playin,g with Isaac her soiz , . . It is
the spectacle of two young children playing together,
innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah’s maternal
jealousy and prompts her cruel demand.” Leupold takes
the opposite view (EG, J99): “The writer did not want
to say that he mocked Isaac, because, apparently, Ishmael
mocked the prospects of Isaac and his spiritual destiny; in
fact, just adopted a mocking attitude over against every-
thin,g involved in Isaac’s future. . . . To translate, as many
would do, “he was playing,” certainly imputes to Sarah
the cheapest kind of jealousy, quite unworthy of this
woman of faith.” But, why should we nQt here, as else-
where, resolve this problem in the light of New Testament
teaching, on the principle that any Scripture must be in
harmony with the teaching of the whole Bible? Therefore,
we shall allow Gal. 4:29 to settle the question: “he that
was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after
409

20: 1-2 1 : 34 GENESIS
the Spirit,” etc. This is a capsule description of the never-
ending warfare of the carnally minded against the spirit-
ually minded (Rom. 8:j-9). The Bible will never s@eak
clearly to those who will not accept it md treat it as a
whole. Just how old was Ishmael by this time? Correlat-
ing 16:16 with 21:5, we conclude that he was about fifteen
years old. It is rather difficult to think that on this occa-
sion a fifteen-year-old would have been doing much “play-
ing” with a two- or three-year-old.
V. lo-Sarah demands that both the bondwoman and
her son should be cast out; this would seem to indicate
that Sarah held Hagar responsible for Ishmael’s mocking
attitude toward Isaac. V. 11-Abraham was grieved, not
so much apparently about the prospect of losing the bond-
woman as about the lack of proper care and protection for
the son if they were to be “cast out,” for, after all, Ishmael
was his son. Abraham’s language in 17:18 seems to indicate
that he had hoped that Ishmael might be recognized as
the promised heir; however, this plea and God’s answer
in v. 19 indicate clearly that this was not ‘the Divine will.
This should teach us that man’s responses and ways of
doing things (righteousness) cannot be substituted f w
God’s ‘way of doing things. In the present instance (v.
11) “Abraham’s displeasure may well have been a reflec-
tion of the fact that customary law of his day forbade the
expulsion of a slave wife and her children” (HSB, 35).
Vv. 12-1 3 : God intervenes to reassure the patriarch, telling
him to hearken to his wife’s demand because she is justified
in making it. God’s reason for sanctioning the demand is
that according to His Eternal Purpose (Eph. 1:3-14, 2:11-
21 ; 3 : 1-12) the true descendants (seed) of Abraham should
be found in the line of Isaac. “Since, then, Ishmael poten-
tially is a foreign element among the offspring of Abraham,
he must be removgd. That being God’s reason for Ishmael’s
and Hagar’s disXiAa1, why should it not also have been
Sarah’s?’’ (EG, 603). “V. 12. Isaac, as thine heir, shall
410

,
SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 2O;l-21:34
bear and propagate thy name; and the promised seed and
land, and the spiritual prerogatives, shall be entailed upon
him, Rom. 9:7-8, Heb. 11:8” (SIBG, 246). Reassurance
is now given to Abraham with respect also to the future
of Ishmael and his progeny: for Abraham’s sake, God tells
him, He will make him expand into a great people; hence
Abraham should have no misgivings as to Ishmael’s survival
of any or all vicissitudes that might lie ahead.
(2) Hagar and Ishmael in the Vilderness (vv, 14-17).
V, 14-Bredd and water. This is a phrase which includes
“all necessary provision, of which it is probable that Hagar
and her son had sufficient to have served them till they
had gotten to Hagar’s friends in Egypt, had they not lost
their way” (SITB, 246). The patriarch put the bottle
(a skin of water, or water-bag) on Hagar’s shoulder, “and
gave her the child, and sent her away.” The critics have
had a field day here, so to speak, in the indulgence of
speculative sophistry, in assuming that the text indicates
that Hagar put the bread, the water-skin, and the boy,
on her shoulder. This is ridiculous, of course, because by
no possible means can the notion that Ishmael was just a
small boy be harmonized with previous passages, such as
17:24, 2J; 21:5, etc. “Distorted tradition could hardly
have grown blurred on so important a fact as the priority
of the birth of Ishmael” (EG, 60Y). Why not accept
the simplest and most obvious meaning, namely, that be
gave the bread and the water and the child (SC, 106),
that is, put the lad’s hand in his mother’s so that she could
lead him by her side. The statement certainly does not
mean that Abraham gave her Ishmael also to carry, Vv.
14-16: Hagar departed, and wandered in the wilderness of
Beersheba. (It seems evident that Abraham was now
dwelling somewhere in the area not too far from Beer-
sheba.) Hagar kept on wandering until her water supply
was exhausted, as inevitably would occur under such cir-
cumstances; such exhaustion as that which resulted from
41 1

2 0 : 1-2 1 : 3 4
GENESIS , ,
lack of water supply naturally affected. the boy much more
quickly than the mother. Haley :(ADB, 418): “The
English version of verses 14- 18 is peculiarly infelicitous,
and makes a wrong impression. The ‘child’ was nolt placed
upon Hagar’s shoulder, nor cast under the shrub, nor held
in the hand, as an infant might have been. The Hebrew
word here rendered ‘child,’ denotes not only an infant, but
also a boy or yozlng man. Ishmael was at the time some
sixteen years of age. The growing boy would be much
more easily overcome by the heat, thirst, and fatigue of
wandering than his mother, the hardy Egyptian handmaid.
When he yielded to exhaustion she hastily laid him,
fainting and half-dead, under the shelter of a shrub. Even
after he was refreshed with water, he needed to be ‘held,’
that is, supported and led, for a time,” (It should be noted
that the same word yeled, ‘child,’ in vv. 14, 15, is applied
to Joseph when seventeen years old (Gen. 37:2, 30). “For
a time the mother supports the son, but her fast-failing
strength cannot bear to be doubly taxed. She finds one of
the bushes of the desert. Scant shade such as may be
offered is often sought out by those wandering in the
desert when they need protection against the sun’s rays
(cf. 1 Ki. 19:4). The mother desires to ease what appear
to be the dying hours of the lad’s life. She drops him
hastily in exhaustion . . . with fine skill the author delineates
how painfully the mother’s love is torn by her
son’s distress. She must stay within sight. Yet she cannot
witness his slow death. At the distance of a bow-shot , . .
she hovers near. Her agonized cry rings out, ‘I cannot
look upon the death of the lad.’” (EG, 606). “She sat
over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.”
Divine succor came, vv. 17-19, in two forms, namely, the
voice of the Angel of God from heaven, and the opening
of Hagar’s eyes. While God Himself heard the voice of
the lad (perhaps his crying out for water), the medium of
His revelation was the Angel of God. “What aileth thee?”
412

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20 : 1-2 1 : 34
-thus the Angel recalled to Hagar that she had no cause
for alarm, that in fact she was forgetting what God had
promised in 16:lOff.; and then He repeated the promise
here that He would make of the boy a great people. (Note
the tremendously dramatic portrayal of physical and emo-
tional suffering that is given us here, and given in just a
few poignant statements), God evidently opened her
eyes; that is, He gave her the insight to perceive that water
was to be found close at hand. She filled the bottle with
water and gave the lad drink. Vv. 20-21: Ishmael’s Future.
The boy grew up, evidently amidst the hardships of the
desert-the proof that God was with him. He became a
skilful bowman (archer) ; indeed his descendants were all
noted for their archery. (Cf. Isa. 21: 17). Ishmael grew
up in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife
for him from among her own people. Mohammedan Arabs
all claim descent from Ishmael; they hold that the well
which God revealed to Hagar was the sacred well of Zem-
zem at Mecca, their holy city. It should be noted that
Ishmael’s line soon lost all spiritual kinship with Abraham
and his posterity.
Geography. V. 14--“the wilderness of Beersheba.”
The name was introduced here proleptically, unless the
incident related in vv. 22-33 had already taken place.
The town itself was midway between the Mediterranean
Sea and the southern end of the Dead Sea some distance
east of Gerar. It became known as the southern limit of
Israelite occupancy, so that the entire land (Palestine)
could be designated as the territory “from Dan to Beer-
sheba” (Judg. 20: 1). “The wilderness of Beersheba” was
the name given to the generally uncultivated waste between
Palstine and Egypt. It seems evident that Abraham spent
much of his later life in this area (Gen. 21:34, 22:19).
Isaac was dwelling there when Jacob set out for Haran
(Gen. 28:lO). On this way into Egypt Jacob stopped
there to offer sacrifices (Gem 46:l). In the division of
41 3

20:1-21:34 GENESIS :,
the land this area went to the tribe of Simeon (Josh. 19:2).
Beersheba was some fifty miles southwest of Jerusalem;
hence, down through the centuries the ,southern gate of
Jerusalem, leading toward Hebron and Beersheba, has been
known as “the gate of friendship” in memoriam of the close
relationship that existed between- God and Abraham
throughout the latter’s sojourn in the Negeb. It was from
Beersheba that Abraham set out on his journey to offer up
Isaac, the child of promise, somewhere in “the land of
Moriah” (Gen. 22:2). The wilderness of Paran (cf. Gen.
14:6)-the region in the central part of the Sinai penin-
sula, east of the wilderness of Shur (cf. Num. 10:12,
12:16; 13:3, 26; 1 Ki. 11:18, 1 Sam. 25:l). Kadesh (or
Kadah-barnea) was on the eastern border of the wilder-
ness of Paran, and hence at the western limit of the wilder-
ness of Zin (Num. 14:32-35, cf. Deut. 2:14; Num. 33:36-
37; Num. 20:l; Num. 2O:lO-13, 27:14, Deut. 32:51;
20:14-21; Judg. 11:16-17; Num. 34:4, John. 15:3; Ezek.
47:19, 58~28; Josh. 10:41). (The oasis of Beer-lahai-roi
was in the northern part of the wilderness of Paran: cf.
Gen. 16:7-14, also Gen. 24:62).
5. The Covenant with Abimelech (vv. 22-34)
22 And it came to Pass at that time, that Abimelech
and Phicol the captain of his host spake unto Abraham,
saying, God is with thee in all that thorn doest: 23 now
therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wi€t not
deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s
son: but according to the kindness that I have doae unto
thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou
bast sojuurned. 24 And Abraham said, I will swear. 25
And Abraham reproved Abimelech became of the well of
water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken
away. 26 And Abimelech said, I know not who htb done
this thing: neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I
of it, but today, 27 And Abraham took. sheep and oxen,
414

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20 : 1-2 1 : 3 4
and gave them unto Abi7nelech; and they two made a
covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the
flock. by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abra-
bum, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast
set by themselves? 30 And he said, These seven ewe lambs
shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto
?ne, that I have digged this well. 31 Wherefore be called
that place Beer-sbeba; because there they sware both of
them. 32 So they‘ made a covenant at Beer-sheba: and
Abimelech rose up, and Phicol the captain of his host, and
they reYurned into the land of the Philistines. 33 And
Abraham plaizted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, aizd called
there oryt the name of Jehovah, the Everlasting God. 34
And Abraham sojouwned in the land of the Philistines
many days.
“At that time,” that is, about the time Isaac was born,
Jewish scholarship explains this incident-the dialogue
between Abimelech and Abraham-substantially as follows
(SC, 106-107). Abimelech recognized that God was with
Abraham, as evident by the latter’s escape from Sodom
(and his abandonment of that area as his place of resi-
dence), and the birth of Isaac in Sarah’s declining years.
On these grounds Abimelech sought peace between them
by means of a covenant (in this sense, a pact, a treaty),
not on the ground of Abraham’s wealth and power. The
king reminded the patriarch of his kindness in permitting
the latter to live in the land surrounding Gerar, seat of
the royal residence, and sought from him a formal declara-
tion of reciprocal courtesy. To give support to this ap-
proach and to the proposed pact, the king brought with
him, Phicol, the leader of his army (cf. 26:26). Me now
learn that the reason for Abimelech’s proposal was the
fact that a strained relationship had arisen; this, said he,
should not be allowed to persist. Whereupon Abraham
replied that his only cause of complaint was the theft by
41 5

20 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS
violence of one of his wells, by Abimelech’s servants.
(Skinner (ICCG, 326) thinks that the right to several
wells was being contested-on the basis of the frequentative
used here; also on the basis of the plural ‘wells’ in the
LXX, Brooke-McLean adition, 1906; and especially by
comparison with the fuller parallel in Gen. 26:18. Skinner
translates, And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to
task about the wells . . . Abimelech would answer . . .
etc.) To this the king replied that he had not been
cognizant of the incident until ‘today’ (Le., the day on
dhich he was meeting with Abrahain to propose this mutual
agreement), even chiding the patriarch for not telling him
about it. (This would seem to refute Skinner: indeed
Abraham might well have dug several wells, but the
violence may have occurred at only one of them.) When
the air had been cleared by this preliminary exchange, the
covenant was actualized. (Some authorities think that the
word “covenant” in Scripture should be used exclusively
to signify pacts in which God is one of the parties in-
volved). It must be kept in mind that in tkese hot coun-
tries a well was of great value (cf, 26: 1 8 -2 1 ) .
Vv. 28-30: The seveiq ewe-lambs. Abraham’s explana-
tion of his purpose in presenting the seven-ewe lambs to
the king “by themselves”-an allusion to the special end
which they were intended to serve-and the king’s accep-
tance of them, signified Abimelech’s renunciation of all
claim to the well in question. The gift or exchange of
presents frequently accompanied the making of a covenant
(cf. 1 Ki. lJ:lP, Isa. 30:6, Hos. l2:1-2), the exchange
in this case, however, was not an integral part of the
covenant. The covenant itself (berith) was then con-
firmed by the mutual oath-taking: hence the name Beer-
sheba, meaning the “Well of the Oath,” after the essential
element of the covenant. “The first part of the compound
means ‘well’; but the second part could be either ‘seven’
or ‘oath.’ Hence an original and entirely appropriate ‘Well
416

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
of Seven,’ that is, Seven-Wells, lent itself to elaboration as
‘Well of the Oath,’ which popular etymology would be
loath to ignore. As a matter of fact, ala three connota-
tions-well, seven, and oath-figure in the present episode
through the medium of popular interpretation: a dispute
1 over a well is resolved by a treaty that is solemnized by
I seven ewes, which in turn symbolize a mutual oath” (ABG,
1 159-160). But Skinner seems to insist that the seven
I lambs, a present or gift, was not “an understood part of
1 the ceremony,” at least on the part of Abimelech. Why
1 can we ndt let the Bible say what it means and mean what
it says? that is, why is it necessary to assume that Abra-
~
, ham himself had nothing to do with the naming of the
place, in view of the plain statement in v. 31 that he did,
and that he so named it with regard to the mutual oath
taken by the king and himself, the “Well of the Oath”?
(Why does the ultra-academic nzentdity insist on readkg
discrepancies into Scripture Passages when there is no necessity
for such nit-picking? Can it be true that the ultraeducated
mind has become so intellectually bogged down
with minutiae that it bas lost the power to think, OY at least
to “think straight”?) It seems that the whole question
involved here is presented with complete clarity: that the
first group of animals, v. 27, symbolized the basic pac’t
(cf. 15:9 ff.), that the second group, on the other hand,
the seven ewe-lambs, was clearly labeled a gift, the acceptance
of which by Abimelech was to constitute the validation
of Abraham’s claim to the well. (Obviously Abraham
may have caused other wells to be dug after this occurrence,
cf. 26:18). The king and his captain then returned “into
the land of the Philistines,” that is, “they simply returned
from Beersheba where this took place, to Gerar which was
the capital” (SC, 107). As Beersheba lay in the same
general area it could also be described as being in the land
of the Philistines. “Beersheba did not belong to Gerar, in
the stricter sense; but the Philistines ex’tended their wander-
41 7

20: 1-21 :34 GENESIS
ings so far, and claimed the district as their own, as is
evident from the fact that Abimelech’s people had taken
the well from Abraham. On the other hand, Abraham
with his numerous flocks would not confine himself to
the Wady es Seba, but must have sought for pasturage in
the whole surrounding country; and as Abimelech had
given him full permission to dwell in the land (2O:l5),
he would still, as heretofore, frequently come as far as
Gerar, so that his dwelling at Beersheba (22:19) might
be correctly described as sojourning (nomadizing) in the
land of the Philistines” (BCOTP, 247). There are several
wells in this vicinity, in our day, we are told, the largest
of which is a little over 12 feet in diameter; “the digging
of this well involved cutting through 16 feet of solid rock.
. . Conder found a date indicating that repairs had
been carried out as late as the 12th century A.D. At the
time of his visit in 1874, it was 38 feet to the surface of
the water” (NBD, 1 38).
V. 33-Tlhe tamarisk tree, planted by Abraham in
Beersheba, common in Egypt and in Petraea, has been
found growing in recent years near the ancient Beersheba.
This is a species of stunted bush or gnarled tree of desert
areas. “The planting of this long-lived tree, with its hard
wood, and its long, narrow, thickly clustered, evergreen
leaves, was to be a type of the ever-enduring grace of the
faithful covenant God.” But there is no mention whatever
of a cult associated with this place, or of sacrifice in
memoriam of the treaty made there. “The tamarisk with
its firm and durable wood was a fitting emblem of the
Everlasting God. Why some make a fetish of this tree, or
others say that the tree was only ‘believed to have been
planted by Abraham,’ is beyond our power to explain”
(EG, 614). Sacred trees, sacred wells, sacred stones, etc.,
each sacred by virtue of the event which it memorialized,
are common throughout the Scriptures (cf. Josh. 4:7;
Gen. 35:8, 13:18; Exo. 3:1-5; cf. Exo. 34:13; Deut.
41 8

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 2O:l-21:34
16:21-22; cf. Deut. 33:16; cf. also Gen. 2:16-17, 3:6;
Rev. 22 : 2) . “Jehovah, the Everlasting God.” The pecul-
iar term here, El Olam, apparently is to justify the transla-
tion, the Eternal. (The critics assume that there was a
Cult of Beersheba, among the sacra of which “there must
have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been placed
there by Abraham.” Hence the name of Deity here is ex-
plained ccpresumably” as being “the pre-Israelite name of
the local numen t “presiding spirit”] here identified with
Yahwe.” But this whole hypo’thesis is based on the ufiriori
determination to “explain” everything recorded in the Old
Testament solely in the light of pagan mythologies and
cults: hence the many such instances in Genesis. The fact
seems to be that no concrete evidence exists to justify the
notion that in this particular account in Genesis a grove
was involved rather than a single tamarisk tree. Simi-
larly, there is no real warrant, outside human speculation,
for trying to tie in the name of Jehovah here with any
localized ?zunzen. I find Lange’s explanation the simplest
and most convincing (CDHCG, 460): “Abraham had
earlier (Gen. 14:22) designated Jehovah as El Elyon, then
recognized him (17:l) as El, Shaddai. It follows from this
that Jehovah had revealed himself to him under various
aspects, whose definitions form a parallel to the universal
name Elohim. The God of the highest majesty who gave
him victory over the kings of the East, the God of mirac-
ulous power who bestowed upon him his son Isaac, now
revealed himself in his divine covenant-truth, over against
the temporary covenant with Abimelech, as the eternal
God, And the tamarisk might well signify this also, that
the hope of his seed for Canaan should remain green until
the most distant future, uninjured by his temporary cove-
nant with Abimelech, which he will hold sacred.” (For
the tamarisk, cf. also 1 Sam. 22:6, 31:13; for The Euer-
Zastiizg God, cf. Exo. 15:18, Psa. 90:2, Jer. 10:10, Deut.
32.40, Dan, 6:26, Rom. 1:20, Eph. 3:9, 2 Pet. 3:8; Rev.
419

2 0 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS
1:8, 4:9, 22:13, etc.) Speiser (ABG, 159): “This need
not, however, refer to the local dei’ty of Beer-sheba, but
may be a local epithet of a deity called upon to support
a formal treaty that is expected to be valid for all time.”
V. 34-More and more Abraham, and later his son
Isaac, saw that this southern extremity of the land (Pales-
tine) was best suited to his sojourning. (This word so-
journing is indeed the key to Abraham’s life throughout:
cf. Heb. 11 :8-10). Many days-according to Rashi’s
calculations: “More than in Hebron: in Hebron he dwelt
twenty-five years but here twenty-six years” (SC, 108).
(Cf. Gen. 22:19, 26:23-33, 28:10, 46:l).
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Allegory of Sarah and Hagar
Gal. 4:21-31, cf. 2 Cor, 3:l-18, Rev. 21:2. An allegory is defined
as a sustained comparison, as a “prolonged metaphor, in which typi-
cally a series of actions are symbolic of other actions” (Webster).
In the allegory of Sarah and Hagar the Apostle certainly points up
the principle of interpretation on which we have insisted, in this work
on Genesis, from the very beginning, namely, that no Scfipture passage
or incident can be clearly understood, or intevpreted, except in the light
of the teaohing of the Bible as a whole. Failure to recognize this
norm is responsible for ninety per cent, I should say, of the doctrinal
confusion that abounds in the nominal Christian world.
In our text the Apostle teaches us that in Hagar and Sarah we
have an allegory of the Old and the New Covenants respectively (in
stereotyped form, the two Testaments which make up the entire Bible).
On the basis of this allegorical interpretation, we find the following
comparisons (in this case, points of difference) :
HAGAR SARAH
(“fugitive,” “flight”) (“princess”)
-.-the bondwoman, slave, Gen. -the freewoman, the wife, Gen.
21:10, 12; Gal. 4:30. 17:15-19, Gal. 4:31.
.-Ishmael, “God hears,” the child -Isaac, “laughter,” the child of
of bondage, Gen. 16:15, Gal. Divine promise, Gen. 17:19,
4 :21-31. 18:14, 21:2; Gal. 423.
--the Old Covenant, which en- -the New Covenant, which en-
gendered unto bondage, Gal, genders unto freedom, Gal.
4:24. 4:26, John 8:31-32, Rom. 8:l-
11, Jas. 1:26.
42 0

-made with the fleshly seed of
Abraham, Gen. 12:l-3, 17:7;
Deut. 6 :1-6, Jer. 31 :31-34.
-mediated by Moses, Deut, 5:4-
6; John 1:17, 7:19; Gal, 3:18-
20.
-included Jews (and proselytes)
only, Gen. 17:9-14.
,that of natural or fleshly birth
(generation), Gen. 17:13,
-that of fleshly circumcision, as
the sign and seal thereof, hence
infants and heathen servants,
who had to be taught to know
the Lord after their induction
into the Covenant by circpm-
cision, Gen. 17:9-14; John 3:6,
7:22; Acts 7:8; Jer. 31:31-34;
Heb. 8:7-12.
-that of an earthly (the Levitical)
priesthood, Exo. 28:1, Heb.
6~4, 7:l-9.
-that of an earthly (the
Aaronic) high priesthood, Lev.
8 :1-9.
-that of Law, John 1:17, “the
bond written in ordinances,”
Col, 2:14, Rom. 2:12-16, Luke
24:44, etc.
-that of Law written on tables
of stone, Exo. 32:16, Deut.
10:4, Heb, 9:4, 2 Cor. 3:3.
SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20: 1--21:34
42 1
-.made with the spiritual seed of
Abraham, those redeemed by
Christ Jesus, Gal. 3:23-29, 1
Cor. 12:13, 1 Pet. 2:l-6.
-mediated by Christ, 1 Tim. 2:6;
Heb. 8:l-6, 9:15, 1224,
-includes all obedient believers
in Christ, both Gentiles and
Jews, ‘Eph. 2 : 11-22, 3 :6-7 ; Rom,
11:28-32; Gal. 3:23-29.
-that of spiritual birth (re-
generation), John 3 :1-7 ; Rom.
5:5, 8:l-11; 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19;
Gal. 6:22-25, 2 Cor. 3:l-3, Tit,
3:5.
--that of spiritual circumcision
as the sign and seal thereof,
Rom. 2:29, Eph. 2:11, Phil.
3:3, Col. 2:9-12. Cf. Acts. 2:38,
John 3:5; Rom. 6:5, 6:l-9;
Gal. 3:27, 2 Cor. 1:22, 1 Cor.
3:16, 6:19. (See under Part
30, “Circumcision of the
Heart.”)
-that of the priesthood of all
obedient believers, 2 Pet, 2,:5,
9; Rev. 1:6, Rom. 12:l.
-that of the royal High Priest-
hood of Christ, after the order
of Melchizedek, i.e., the King-
Priest “without beginning of
days or end of life,” Psa.
110:4; Heb., chs. 7, 8, 9, 10.
-that of Grace (unmerited fa-
vor), John 1:27, Rom. 3:24,
7:4, 8:3, 10:4; Eph. 2:8, Tit.
3:7, Acts 20:24, etc.
--that of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus, Rom. &:2, 1 Cor.
16:46, John 6:63, 68; written
on “tablets of human hearts,”
2 Cor. 3:3 (R.S.V.); hence, by
“the hearing of faith,” Gal 3:2.
(Cf. also Jer, 31:33, Ezek.
11:19).

‘$0 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS ‘’ 3 ’ ’
-that of the “letter,” i.e., of the
Mosaic Law regarded as ‘‘a
yoke of externalism, a system
that possessed no life of its
own, and inspired no life in
others.” Rom. 3:19-20.
-that of the ministration of
death, 2 Cor. 3:7; that is, the
Law passes the death sentence
on all who disobey it, 1 Cor,
16:66, Rom. 6:12,
-that of the ministration of con-
demnation, 2 Cor. 3:9; the
system of “thou-shalt nots,”
disobedience to which was sin,
and usually incurred the death
penalty, e.g., Num. 16:32-36;
John 8:6.
-that of a system of shadows
or types, Heb., chs. 9, 10; cf.
Rom. 6:14, 1 Pet. 3:19-21.
-that system under which the
gifts and powers of the Holy
Spirit were bestowed only on
individuals to qualify them for
tasks which God commissioned
them to perform, Gen. 20:7,
Neh. 9 :9-30, Isa. 63 : 10-161;
Num. 11:17, 26, 26-30; Num.
27 :18-23 ; EXO. 36 :30-36; Judg.
4:4, 3:10, 11:29; Judg. 14:6,
14, 19; 1 Sam. 11:6, 16:13; 2
Sam. 23:l-2; 1 Chron. 28:ll-
12; cf. Neh. 9:20, 2 Pet. 1:211
1 Pet. l:bO-12; hence, im-
pevfect in the sense that it
lacked the promises connected
with the Gospel, Jer. 31 :31-34,
Heb. 8 :7-12, 9 : 11-16, 10 : 1-18.
-that’ of the “spirit,” 2 Cor. 3 :3,
Rod. 3:21-27; John 6:63; Rom.
8:f;ll; that which makes for
freedom in Christ Jesus, John
8:31-32, Jas. 1:26; freedom
both from the guilt of sin
(Ezek. 18:19-20; and from the
consequences of sin, Exo. 20:6-
6,’ and from passion, pride,
superstition, prejudice, etc., as
well, John 6:63.
-that of the ministration of the
spirit, Rom. 7:6, 8:6; John
6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6.
t h a t of the ministration of
righteousness, Le., justification,
Rom. 6:l-11. Cf. also Rom.
2:27-29, 7:6, 8:ll; Gal. 6:8, 1
Cor. 16:46. John 8:6-the Law
would stone the adulteress; the
Gospel said to her, “Go, and
sin no more.”
-that of the antitypes, the real-
ities of “heavenly things,” Heb.
8:6, also ch. 10.
-that system under which all
obedient believers-the church
-share the indwelling of the
Spirit, John 7:37-39, Acts 2:38,
Rom. 6:6, 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19;
Rom. 8:1J, 1 Cor. 12:13, Rom.
14:17, 1 Pet. 12; hence, said
to be “enacted upon better
promises,” viz., remission of
sins, the indwelling of the
Spirit, and eternal life, Acts
2~38; Rom. 6:6, 8:9-11, 2 Cor.
122; Eph. 4:30, 6:18; Matt.
26:46, Rom. 623, John 3:16.
Farrar (PC, Second Corinthians, 68) : “In other words, ‘not of
the Law, but of the Gospel’; not of that which is dead, but of that
which is living; not of that which is deathful, but of that which is
422

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20: 1-21 : 34
lifegiving; not of bondage, but of Ireedom; not of mutilation, but of
self-control; not of the outward, but of the inward; not of works,
but of grace; not of menace, but of promise; not of curse, but of
blessing; not of wrath, but of love; not of Moses, but of Christ. This
is the theme which St. Paul develops especially in the Epistles to the
Romans and the Galatiaqs (see Rom. 2:29, 3:20, 7:6-11, 8:2; Gal,
3 :lo, 5 :4, ek.) .”
On Gal, 4:22-26, Mackintosh (NG, 181) writes: “‘The flesh’ is,
in this important passage, contrasted with ‘promise’; and thus we not
only get the divine idea as to what the term ‘flesh‘ implies, but also
as to Abraham’s effort to obtain the seed by means of Hagar, instead
of resting in God’s ‘promise.’ The two covenants are allegorized by
Hagar and Sarah, and are diametrically opposite, the one to the other.
The one gendering to bondage, inasmuch as it raised the question as
to man’s competency ‘to do’ and ‘not to do,’ and made life entinely
dependant upon that competency. ‘The man that doeth these things
shall live in them.’ This was the Hagar-covenant. But the Sarahcovenant
reveals God as the God of promise, which promise is entirely
independent of man, and founded upon God’s willingness and ability
to fulfill it, When God makes a promise, there is no ‘if’ attached
thereto. He makes it unconditionally, and is resolved to fulfill it; and
faith rests in Him, in perfect liberty of heart, It needs no effort of
nature to reach the accomplishment of a divine promise. Here was
precisely where Abraham and Sarah failed. They made an effort of
nature to reach a certain end, which end was absolutely secured by a
promise of God. This is the grand mistake of unbelief. By its rest-
less activity, it raises hazy mist around the soul, which hinders the
beams of the divine glory from reaching it. ‘He could do there no
mighty works, because of their unbelief.’ One great characteristic
virtue of faith is, that it ever leaves the platform clear for God to
show Himself; and truly, when He shows Himself, man must take
the place of a happy worshiper.” Again: “Hence, therefore, a man
who tells me, You must be so and so, in order to be saved, robs the
cross of all its glory, and robs me of all my peace. If salvation
depends upon our being or doing aught, we shall inevitably be lost.
Thank God, it does not; for the great fundamental principles of the
gospel is that God is ALL: man is NOTHING. It is not a mixture
of God and man-it is all of God. The peace of the Gospel does not
repose in part on Christ’s work and in part on man’s work; it reposes
who& on Christ’s work, because that work is perfect-perfect for-
ever; and it renders all who put their trust in it as perfect as itself”
(p. 183). (Cf. John 1:29).
“The law addresses man, tests him, proves him a wreck, puts
him under a curse, It not only puts him there, but keeps him t,here
as long as he is occupied with it. The Gospel, on the other hand,
recognizes that man is lost, in need of a Savior. So the Gospel reveals
God as He is-the Savior of the lost, the Pardoner of the guilty, the
Quickener of the dead, It exhibits Kim as extending His ineffable
grace in offers of redemption, There is nothing in man-for who
could expect anything out of a bankrupt?-that might enable him to
achieve redemption no matter how strenuously he might tug at his
42 3

20 : 1-2 1 : 3 4 GENESIS ~
,.own
bootstraps, There is no provision in any law for self-redemption:
redemption can occur only when the true owner buys back his own
property. God is the owner of all things-the earth and the fulnees
thereof, all things non-living and living, including man. Therefore,
since man has chosen to mortgage himself in din, he simply cannot
be redeemed unless and until his original oyner ,pays the ransom price
and so buys him back: that ransom price was paid on Calvary, God
must independently exhibit His own grace to the fallen creatures
(Rom. 3:23, Col. 1:21-22; Rom. 6:6, 7:14; Eph. 2:1, Gal, 4:3, Heb.
2:17, Matt. 26:28, 1 Tim. 2:5-6, etc.). A Galatians, like ,Abraham
of old, were going away from God, a ending upon the flesh,
They were returning to bondage, and to go back unto the Law was
to put themselves back under the curse of ,sinj of. Gal. 3:l-14.
“While the birth of Isaac filled Sarah

SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1-21:34
I will give you B few, as I think, valid reasons for not
baptizing infants:
1, It is without Scriptural authority, Neither Christ
nor any one of the apostles ever commanded it.
2. It supplants believers’ baptism, which the Lord did
command.
3, It has a tendency to subvert true coversion, by
bringing persons into the church in infancy, causing them
to trust to that for salvation.
4. It deprives one of the pleasure of obedience.
5. It involves uncertainty as to having been baptized.
6. It teaches baptismal regeneration. Indeed, baptis-
mal regeneration gave rise to infant baptism.
7. It changes the order of Christ’s commission to His
apostles; their first duty according to that, was to teach,
or preach the gospel; but, according to this doctrine, their
first duty was to baptize.
8. To be baptized is an act of obedience, but an infant
can not obey an authority it knows nothing about.
9. Peter says that baptism is the answer of a good
conscience, but the infant can have no conscience in the
matter.
10. Baptism is coupled w2th repentance and faith, but
infants are incapable of either.
11. Baptism was coupled with calling on the name
of the Lord by those who were baptized, but infants can-
not do that.
12. Those baptized by divine authority gave satisfac-
tory evidence of faith, by a confession, before they were
baptized, but infants can not.
13, Infant baptism is generally employed to bring
them into the church, a place in which they are in no way
qualified to be, Church members in the days of the
apostles, first, gave heed to the apostles’ teaching; attended
to the fellowship; third, partook of the Lord’s Supper;
fourth, engaged in prayer; fifth, did not dare to wilfully
42 1

20~1-21:34 GENESIS
neglect the assembly of the saints; sixth, exhorted one
another; seventh, engaged in the public charities that were
imposed upon them at the time; eighth, exhibited the
fruits of the Spirit. Now infants can do none of these
things, and hence can not be members of the church.
14. It set at naught all change of heart as necessarily
preceding baptism.
(To this we add: infant “christening,” commonly
called “infant baptism,” is really infant aspersion (sprin-
kling), or infant affusion (pouring). Real infant baptism
is infant immersion, the practice of Greek Orthodoxy from
the first.)
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART THIRTY-THREE
1. Locate the Negeb, Gerar, “the way of Shur.” What
mining operations were carried on in this area in
patriarchal times?
2. To what area did Abraham migrate after the destruc-
tion of the Cities of the Plain? What probably
prompted this move?
3. What evidence do we have that the Philistines were
in this area even before patriarchal times?
4. From what Mediterranean areas did the Philistines
come?
5. Explain “Caphtor” and “Caphtorian.”
6. What did the word “Abimelech” signify?
7. What probably was Abimelech’s motive for taking
Sarah into his harem?
8. What affliction did God put on the house of Abim-
elech because of this action?
9. What does this account indicate about Abimelech’s
general moral standards?
10. Name the outstanding dream experiences related in
the Bible.
42 6

11,
12,
13.
14.
1 J.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
2J.
2 6.
27.
SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1--21:34
List some of the more important Biblically-related
vision-experiences.
How did these differ from theophanies?
What were the functions of a prophet? In what
sense was Abraham a prophet?
What did God order Abimelech to do by way of
restitution for the wrong he had committed?
How did Abraham account for his own action with
respect to Abimelech and Sarah?
What were the details of Abimelech’s response (restitution)
?
What was the result of Abraham’s intercession for
A bimelech ?
How does Abimelech compare with Pharaoh in the
similar incident recorded in ch. 12?
What seems to have been God’s over-all design in His
dealing with the persons involved?
In what three chapters of Genesis do we find this
theme of a sister-wife relationship recorded, and who
were the persons involved in each case?
What added explanation did Abraham make to Abimelech
that he had not made to Pharaoh? How
account for this added disclosure?
On what grounds do we reach the conclusion that
these three accounts involving sister-wife relationships
were accounts of three different episodes?
List the circumstantial differences in the two narratives.
Is it reasonable to assume a Priori that similar events
are necessarily identical?
How does Dr. Speiser relate Hurrian customary law
to these sister-wife episodes?
What are some of the objections to this view?
In what sense was Isaac’s conception and birth a
special demonstration of Divine power?
42 7

2O:l-21:34 GENESIS
28. How old was Abraham when Isaac was born? How
long had he waited €or the fulfillment of the Divine
promise ?
29. What did the name “Isaac’’ mean? What was the
basis for giving the boy this name?
30. What aroused Sarah’s resentment against Hagar and
her son?
What did she demand of Abraham?
3 1, How does Skinner’s explanation of Sarah’s attitude
differ from that of Leupold et al?
32. How does Gal. 4:29 give us the determination of this
problem?
33. What was Abraham’s personal reaction to Sarah‘s
demand that Hagar and her son be cast out?
34. What reassurance did God give Abraham about the
future of Ishmael and his progeny?
3J. What is the simplest and obvious meaning of v. 14?
36, How does Haley explain verses 14-18?
37. How does Genesis describe Hagar’s and Ishmael’s
condition in the “wilderness of BeershebaJ’?
38. How did Divine succor come to Hagar and her son?
What did God promise with regard to Ishmael’s
future? What circumstances of his future are dis-
closed here?
39. Locate geographically the Wilderness of Beersheba, the
Wilderness of Paran, and the Wilderness of Zin.
40. What role does Beersheba play in the story of the
patriarchal age? ’
41. How long did Abraham continue to sojourn in the
region of Beersheba?
42. What kind of covenant did Abimelech now seek with
Abraham? What apparently prompted him to pro-
pose this covenant?
43. What seems to have been the cause of the strained
relationship between the patriarch and the king?
44. What was the importance of wells in these countries?
42 8

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
5 0.
51.
52.
53.
5 4.
5 5.
5 6.
57.
SOJOURN IN THE NEGEB 20:1--21:34
In what way was the coyenant confirmed in this
instance?
What was the purpose of Abraham’s gift of the seven
ewe-lambs?
Give Dr. Speiser’s explanation of the etymology of
the name “Beersheba.”
What claim apparently was validated by Abimelech‘s
acceptance of the seven ewe-lambs?
In what sense is Beersheba said to have been “in the
land of the Philistines”?
Explain the significance of Abraham’s planting of the
tamarisk tree in Beersheba. Is there any significant
evidence that this was in a grove or that the place
was the locus of a pagan cult?
What general forms do ?rzenzoriaZs take in Scripture?
That is, what are the different kinds?
Explain the significance of the name El Olmn.
Restate Lange’s exposition of the significance of this
name.
How many years did Abraham spend in this region,
in comparison with the length of his sojourn near
He bron ?
Why is the word “sojourn” so significant in explaining
Abraham’s movements?
Explain what is meant by the Allegory of Sarah and
Hagar.
List the essential features of this allegory.
Review the section of Part Thirty which has to do
with “circumcision of the heart,” showing precisely
what Scripture teaches spiritual circumcision to be.
What reasons are given by Dungan for’ not practising
what is called “infant baptism”? How is “infant
baptism” related to “spiritual circurnsision”? ’
429

PART THIRTY-FOUR
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
CONFIRMATION OF THE COVENANT
Genesis 22 : 1-24
The Sacrifice of Isaac (1 -24)
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did
prove Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham; and he said,
Here am I. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine onljl
son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the
land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offeving
atport one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 3
And Abraham rose early in the mmning, and saddled his
ass, and took two of his young emen with him, and Isaac
his son; and he clave the wood for the bwnt-offerimg, and
rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told
him. 4 On the third day Abraham lifted zip his eyes, and
saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his
young men, Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad
will go yonder; and we will worship, and cme again to
you. 6And Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering,
and laid it upon Isaac his son; and be took in his hand the
fire and the knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My
fgther: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said,
Behold, the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a
burnt-offering? 8 And Abraham said, God will provide
himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son: so’thehey
went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told
him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the
wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on
the altar, upon the wood. IO And Abraham stretched
forth his hand, and took the knife to sluy his son. 11 And
the angel of Jehovah called unto him mLt of heaven, and
said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am 1. 12 And
43 0

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22: 1-24
he said, Lay not thy hand upoii the lad, neither do thou
anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God,
seeing thou bast not withheld thy sov, thine ody smf, from
me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and,
behold, behind hiin a rani caaqht iiz the thicket by his
horizs: and Abrahanz went and took the ram, a?zd offered
him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his soii,. 14
And Abraham called the name of that $lace Jehovah-jireh:
as it is said to this day, In tbe mount of Jehovah it shd
be prodded. l j And the aiigel of Jehovah called unto
Abraham a second tiine out of heaven, 16 and said, By
myself have I sworn, saitb Jehovah, because thou bast done
this thing, and bast not withheld thy son, thine oiily son,
17 that in blessifig I will bless thee, aiid in multiplying I
will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as
the sa?zd wbkh is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall
Possess the gate of his enemies; 18 and in thy seed shall ad1
the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou bast obeyed
my voice. 19 So Abraham returwed unto his young men,
and they rose id$ and went together to Beer-sheba; and
Abraham dwelt at Beer-sbeba.
20 And it came to pass after these things, that it was
told Abrahanz, saying, Behold, Milcah, she also bath borne
children unto thy brother Nahor: 21 Uz his first-born,
and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, 22
and Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and
Bethel. 23 And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight did
Milcah bear to Nahor, Abrabanz’s brother. 24 And his
concubine, whose name wus Reunzab, she also bare Tebah,
and Gaham, and Tabash, and Maacah.
1. The Divine Command, vv. 1, 2
Skinner (ICCG, 327-328): “The only incident in
Abraham’s life expressly characterized as a ‘trial’ of his
faith is the one here narrated, where the patriarch proves
his readiness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice at the
43 1

22:l-24 GENESIS
command of God. The story, which is the literary master-
piece of the Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite
simplicity; every sentence vibrates with restrained emotion,
which shows how fully the author realizes the tragic horror
of the situation.” “For many years had Abraham waited
for the promised seed, in which the divine promise was to
be fulfilled. At length the Lord had given him the desired
heir of his body by his wife Sarah, and directed him to send
away the son of the maid. And now that this son had
grown into a young man, the word of God had come to
Abraham to offer up this very son, who had been given
to him as the heir of the promise, for a burnt-offering,
upon one of the mountains which should be shown him.
The word did not come from his own heart-was not a
thought suggested by the sight of the human sacrifices of
the Canaanites, that he would offer a similar sacrifice to
his God; nor did it originate with the tempter to evil.
The word came from Ha-Elohim, the personal, true God,
who tried him, i.e., demanded the sacrifice of the only,
beloved son, as a proof and attestation of his faith. The
issue shows, that God did not desire the sacrifice of Isaac
by slaying and burning him upon the altar, but his complete
surrender, and a willingness to offer him up to God even
by death. Nevertheless the divine command was given in
such a fgrm, that Abraham could not understand it in any
other way than as requiring an outward burnt-
because there was no other way in which Abrah
lish the complete surrender of Isaac, than by an
actual preparation for really offering the desired sacrifice.
This constituted the trial, which necessarily produced a
severe internal conflict in his mind. , . , But Abraham
brought his reason into captivity to the obedience of Faith”
(BCOTP, 248).
V. 1. Speiser puts it: “God put Abraham to the test”
(ABG, 161). God tempts no man by enticing him to sin
(Jas, 1:13)# “Nor does the word here signify any such
43 2

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
thing, but to try en.q&itely; nor doth God try men in
order to promote or to confirm his own knowledge of them,
but to manifest what they are, to themselves and to the
world, that his rewarding or punishing them may appear
the more wise and equal, or his blessing them the more
gracious (Deut. 3:2, 13:3; Judg. 2:22; 2 Chron. 32:31;
ha. 139:23, 24; 1 Cor. 10:13; Exo. 1J:2$, 16:4; Jas. 1:12;
1 Sam. 3:4, 6). By this command God tried the faith of
Abraham with respect to his believing that in Isaac his
seed should be called; and that through the death of the
Messiah he and other believers should obtain everlasting
salvation; and tried his obedience in the most tender point;
that could be conceived-his deliberate slaying of his own
darling, his only son by his wife, his only son now left in
his own house, ch. 2l:l, 12, 14” (SIBG, 247-248). “‘God
put Abraham to the test’-the effect is heightened by the
definite article with Elohim. The idea is thus conveyed
that this was no ordinary procedure, but that God had a
par’ticularly important objective in mind” (ABG, 162).
Rashi notes how God bore down on Abraham’s heart
more poignantly with each successive explanatory phrase
(SC, 108): “Thy son. ‘But I have two sons,’ Abraham
said. ‘Thine only ove,’ was the reply.
‘But each is the
only one of his mother!’ ‘Whowz thou lovest,’ he was told.
‘But I love both!’ and the answer came, ‘Even Isaac.’ Why
did not God name Isaac at once? Lest Abraham’s mind
should reel under the sudden shock. Further, to make His
command more precious to him. And finally, that he
might receive a reward for every word spoken.”
The ARV gives the most satisfactory rendering: “God
did prove Abraham.’’ That is to say, God proved Abra-
ham (his faith, his righteousness) to himself, to his 80s-
terity, and to all humaizity, as the Father of the Faithful.
Surely God knows whether a man’s faith will be strong
enough to enable him to emerge triumphantly from such
an ordeal (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13). Cf. Jas. l:l2-15: the real
43 3

22 : 1-24 GENESIS
temptation, that of Satan, occurs when one is drawn away
by his own lust, and enticed, even as Eve-at Satan’s
suggestion-was enticed by her lust for illicit knowledge
(Gen. 3 : 6). James gives us here the true pedigree of sin:
Satan, lust, sin, death.
Note that God said to Abraham, etc., v. 1, possibly
in a dream-vision, but surely in an audible voice which
previous experience had taught him to recognize. Note
the patriarch’s simple response, “Here am I,” a response that
combined both humility and readiness: so do the righteous
always respond to God’s calls (cf. Acts 22:10, Isa. 6:8).
“Into the land of Moriab,” i.e., “Jerusalem. The
Rabbis explained that it was so named because from thence
‘teaching’ (boradh) went forth to the world. It was the
land of the Amorite . . . the land where myrrh grew
abundantly (cf. Song of S. 4:6) ; it was the site of the
Temple,” cf. 2 Chron. 3:l (S.C., 109). “2 Chron. 3:l
identifies Moriah with the hill on which the Jerusalem
temple was later built. Subsequent tradition accepted the
identification” (JB, 39). As in all such cases involving
the support of tradition only, modern criticism is inclined
skeptical about this identification. It has been
objected that the region of Beersheba (from which Abra-
ham and Isaac set out) is not sufficiently distant ’from
Jerusalem to have required a journey of three days to
there, and that a topographical feature of the city of Jeru-
salem is that the Temple hill is not visible until the traveler
is quite close. “However, the distance from S. Philistia
to Jerusalem is about 50 miles, which might well have re-
quired three days to traverse, and in Genesis the place in
question is not a ‘mount Moriah’ but one of the several
mountains in a land of that name, and the hills on which
Jerusalem stands are visible at a distance. There is no need
to doubt therefore that Abraham’s sacrifice took place in
the site of the later Jerusalem, if not on the Temple hill”
434

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
(NBD, 842). “Moriab signifies ‘the vision’ or ‘manifestation
of Jehovah.’ The name is here given to ‘the land’ on
one of whose mountains the sacrifice was to be offered
up; it is also given to the mountain on which the temple
was built. The common belief is that these two places
were identical, and we see no reason to doubt or question
it. Mount Moria11 is an oblong-shaped hill, or rather point
of a ridge, having the deep glen of the Tyropoeon on the
west, and the Kidron on the east. The glens unite at the
foot of the hill on the south. The elevation of the summit
above the bottom of the glens is about 3JO feet. Moriah
is now crowned by the Great Mosque, and is one of the
most venerated sanctuaries of the Mohammedans” (SIBG,
248).
2. The Journey, vv. 1-8.
“The accumulation of brief,
sententious clauses here admirably represents the calm de-
liberation and unflinching heroism with which the patriarch
proceeded to execute the Divine command” (PCG, 2 8 3 ) .
Note the pipeparations: these were begun early in the morn-
ing (cf. 19:27, 20:8, 21:14). The patriarch saddled his
ass, and took two of his young men with him-the ass
for the wood, the young men for the ass; and Zsaac his
SOIZ (probably explaining to him as yet only his intention
to offer sacrifice on a distant mountain). Nothing is
indicated here but sublime innocence on Isaac’s part and
unflinching resoluteness and obedience on the part of
Abraham. (Did Abraham say anything to Sarah about this
journey, especially the purpose of it? We doubt it. From
previous attitudes on her part we can hardly believe that
she would have accepted this apparently tragic commission
with the same unflinching obedience of faith that charac-
terized Abraham’s response) . “While the outward prep-
arations are graphically described, no word is spared for
the conflict in Abraham’s breast-a striking illustration of
the reticence of the legends with regard to mental states”
(Skinner, ICCG, 329). How old was Isaac at this time?
43 5

22:1-24 GENESIS
Josephus (Antiq., I, 13, 2) follows the tradition which
puts his age at twenty-five; other commentators would
have him to be some eighteen years old at the time. (He
was thirteen, it will be recalled, when he was circumcised,
Gen. 17:25). At any rate he was intelligent enough to be
a willing party to the sacrifice of his life at God’s com-
mand (once the purpose of the journey was revealed to
him), and strong enough to carry up the “mountain” the
split wood for the offering.
Without taking counsel with anyone, the solemn pro-
cession set out from the Beersheba area-the patriarch,
with his son, his two servants, and the ass that bore the
wood-and on the third day they arrived within sight of
the place of sacrifice. (Glueck has called attention to the
fact that it would have been odd for Abraham to have
carried wood from Beersheba to the wooded country around
Jerusalem where he could easily have found all the wood
that he needed. He suggests that the land of Moriah of
this text might have been “in the treeless ranges of Sinai
down near Kadesh.” However, the three days’ journey
certainly is in accord with the distance of some fifty miles
from Beersheba to the region around Jerusalem. At any
rate, Abraham on the third day “saw the place afar off.”
It is evident from this statement that by this time the
place had been specifically indicated by divine authority
(cf. v. 2). We can hardly imagine the intensity of the
pang that shot through the patriarch’s heart ordering the
two servants to “abide” where they were with the ass (it
seems quite probable that what was about to take place
would have been repugnant to them: at any rate they
could hardly have thought. of it as “worship”), Abraham
said, “I and the lad will go yonder, and we will worship,
and come again to you” (v. 5). Note the “we” in this
promise: “Abraham firmly believed that God would restore
his son to life from the ashes into which he expected him
to be burned, and cause him to came back with him, Heb.
436

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
11:19” (SIBG, 248). So “they went both of them to-
gether” up the mountain, Isaac carrying the heavier load,
the wood for the offering. The aged Abraham could
hardly have carried this load, but “with resoluteness of
faith he bears the two means of destruction: a container,
like a censer, filled with live coals, and the fatal knife”
(EG, 625). (It is curious that we do not find any allusion
in the Old Testament to the method of producing fire).
Vv. 7, 8: “The narrative gives free play to our imagina-
tion as it pictures father and son proceeding step by step
up the hill, Isaac cannot but sense that some unwonted
burden depresses his father past anything that the son had
ever observed in the father before. This attitude on the
father’s part causes some restraint between the two, and a
strange preplexity falls upon Isaac” (EG, 625). “The
pathos of this dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of
the child, the irrepressible affection of the father, and
the stern ambiguity of his reply, can hardly be read with-
out tears” (ICCG, 3 3 0). Undoubtedly Abraham now
made it clear to his son what was about to take place and
why. “Isaac, though able to resist, yielded up himself, as
typical of Christ’s voluntary oblation of himself for us,
Phil. 2:8, Eph. 5:2, Acts 8:32” (SIBG, 248). Cf. also
Heb. 12:2-note, “for the joy that was set before him,”
i.e., the ineffable joy of redeeming lost souls, “he endured
the cross,” etc. “God will provide the lamb for a burnt-
offering, my son.” “The father devises an answer which
is a marvelous compound of considerate love and anticipa-
tive faith. He spares Isaac undue pain and leaves the issues
entirely with God, where in his own heart he left them
throughout the journey. In the light bf what follows,
Abraham’s answer is well-nigh prophetic, ‘God will pro-
vide.’ It marks the high point of the chapter, the one
thing about God’s dealings with His own that here receives
emphatic statement” (EG, 62).” On v. 8: “God will
provide the lamb; and if not, then you, my son, will be the
437

22: 1-24 GENESIS
offering. And although Isaac was aware that he might be
sacrificed, yet they went both of them together, with one
mind” (SC, 11 0) ,
3. The Sacrifice Averted. Vv. 9-13.
The preliminary
ritual is now carried out: the altar is built, and the wood
laid in order. Isaac is then bound and laid upon the altar,
and Abraham lifts the deadly knife to kill. But the
sacrifice is averted as again we meet the Angel of Jehovah,
speaking from heaven, to stay the patriarch’s hand. V: 12
--“Now I know,” etc. (“Now I can give a reason to all
intelligent beings for my love for thee; now I have proved
that thou art a Godfearing man,” etc. “Now I can record
in Scripture for all generations to know that you are truly
my Friend.”) V. 13-The substitution of the ram “caught
in the thicket” for the human victim evidently takes place
without express command, the patriarch recognizing by its
mysterious presence at the moment of crisis that it was
‘provided.’ “After lying under a sentence of death three
days, Isaac was released by the orders of Heaven, as a figure
of Christ’s resurrection on the third day, 1 Cor. II:3, 4;
Matt. 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Luke 13:32)” (SIBG, 248).
“This ram was directed hither by divine providence, as a
figure of Christ appointed of God, and engaged to make
atonement for our sins, 1 Pet. 1:19, Job 33:24” (ibid.)
“In the extremities of distress God interposes as a helper
and deliverer, Deut. 32:36, Mic. 4:10, Matt. 15:32.
on Mount Moriah in the temple God was long manifested
in the symbols of his presence, 2 Chron. 3:1, Psa. 76:2;
and there Jesus often appeared while in the flesh, Hag.
2:7; John, chs. 2, 5, 7, 10” (ibid.).
V. Il--“Here dm Z. Abraham heard God call him;
he was quick to respond. Had he not been listening he
could not have responded; had he been disobedient he
would not have answered yes” (HSB, 36). V. 13--“The
ram caught in the thicket was a revelatory event of God
to Abraham. When Abraham prepared to offer his only
43 8

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
son Isaac in obedience to God’s command, his dilemma was
this: how could he reconcile the command of God to slay
his son with God’s previous promise that through this son
should come a great posterity? He did not solve the prob-
lem by deciding to disobey God’s command to offer up
Isaac. Rather by faith he concluded that God Himself
would raise Isaac from the dead after he had been offered.
Spiritually there is a deeper lesson. God, like Abraham,
did not spare His own Son (Rom. 8:32), And, as Abra-
ham received back Isaac as though he had been raised from
the dead, so Christ has been raised by the Father from the
dead” (ibid.)
4. V. 14. Jehovah-jirelg, ie., Jehovah will see, or pro-
vide. “The plain meaning is: ‘the Lord will see’ and choose
this place for the dwelling of the Divine Presence, i.e., the
Temple’’ (Rashi, SC, 111). (Is there contradiction be-
tween the Name used here and the statement in Exo. 6:3,
where God is represented as telling Moses that He was
known to the patriarchs as El Shaddai, but by His Name
Yaliwe He was not known to them?) “Certainly this is ndt
to be taken to mean that the patriarchs were altogether
ignorant of the name Jehovah. It was in His attribute
as El Shaddai that God had revealed His nature to the
patriarchs; but now [at the beginning of the Mosaic
ministry] He was about to reveal Himself to Israel as
Jehovah, as the absolute Being working with unbounded
freedom in the performance of His promises. For not only
had He established His covenants with the fathers, but
He had also heard the groaning of the children of Israel.
. . . On the ground of the erection of His covenant on the
one hand, and, what was irreconcilable with that covenant,
the bondage of Israel on the other, Jehovah was now about
to redeem Israel from its sufferings and make it His own
nation” (KD, BCOTP, 468). In a word, under the
mediatorship of Moses He would reveal Ilimself fully as
the Covenant-God, Yahwe.
43 9

22: 1-24 GENESIS
Vv. 15-19, “When God made promise to Abraham,
since he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself,
saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee,’’ etc. Note that
the promise-the Abrahamic promise-is now confirmed
(by the Angel of Jehovah calling unto Abraham a second
time out of heaven) by two immutable things, his word
and oath, in which it is impossible for God to lie, etc. The
promises here solemnly confirmed by oath are almost wholly
related to Abraham’s Hebrew and spiritual seed. To Possess
the gates of their enemies is to obtain their country, or to
have dominion over them, and rule among them: Gen.
21:12, 24:60; Deut. 21:19, 22:24. The Jews had temporal
dominion over their enemies in the time of Joshua, David,
etc., cf. Joshua, chs. 6-19; 2 Sam., chs. 8, 10. And Christ
and His people have a spiritual dominion over them, Psa.
2:8-9, 22:27-30; Dan. 4:34-35; Rom. 8:37, 1 Cor. 15:25-
28, Col. 2:Ij. What a quiet, poignantly meaningful end-
ing, to an experience unparalleled in the history of man.
How striking the final word from heaven: “because thou
hast obeyed my voice.” NOW, Abraham, his son, his two
servants, and the beast of burden return to Beersheba, “and
Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.”
5. The Progeny of Nabor, vv. 20-24, a list of the
Aramaean tribes. Note the division here between legitimate
(vv. 23-24) and illegitimate (v. 24) sons. Co
were women of a middle state, between wives and harlots;
“a kind of half-wives, sharing in bed and board, but not
in the government of the family, Gen. 21:l-6, 30:4, 35:22;
Judg. 19:1, 1 Ki. 11:3, 1 Chron. 1:32. They served under
the lawful wives, if alive, Gen. 16:6-7, 32:22; and their
children had no title to the inheritance, Gen. 21:5, 6
(SIBG, 248). The genealogy inserted here is designed,
of course, to introduce the family from which Rebekah
is to make her appearance in the sacred history.
440

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
6. The Sigiiif icaiice of Abraham’s Sacrificial Act.
One most important truth to be derived from it is that
the essence of sacrifice is the iizoral disjositioi? of the swp-
pliant. Moreover, as the essential property of music is
harmony, and that of art is beauty, so the essential prop-
erty of love is sacrifice, This particular episode, however,
has significance along other lines, We might well ask
whether God’s design in this particular case was in any
way related to the pagan practice of human sacrifice.
Some authorities think so. For example, from one exegete
we read that “presumab1y” the intent of the tale was to
teach that “human sacrifice has no place in the worship
of the Lord the God of Israel, cf. Mic. 6:6-8” (IBG, 645).
Again (JB, 39, n.) : “It is the basis of the ritual prescrip-
tion for the redemption of the first-born of Israel: like all
‘firsr-fruits’ these belong to God; they are not, however,
to be sacrificed but bought back, ‘redeemed,’ Exo. 13:ll.
Lying behind the story, therefore, is the condemnation of
child-sacrifice, see Lev. 18 : 2 1 f f ,, so of ten denounced by
the prophets. In this incident Abraham’s faith reaches its
climax-the story’s second lesson, more profound than the
first. In the sacrifice of Isaac, the Fathers saw a pre-
figuring of the Passion of Jesus, the only-begotten Son.”
Cf. Speiser (ABG, 165) : “Was it, then, the aim of the
story to extol obedience to God as a general principle?
Abraham had already proved himself on that count by
heeding the call to leave Mesopotamia. and make a fresh
start in an unknown land (12:I ff.) The meaning of the
present narrative, therefore, would have to become some-
thing more specific, And we can hardly go too far afield
if we seek the significance of Abraham’s supreme trial in
the very quest on which he was embarked. The involve-
ment of Isaac tends to bear this out, since the sole heir to
the spiritual heritage concerned cannot but focus attention
on the future. The process that Abraham set in motion
441

22~1-24 GENESIS
was not to be accomplished in a single generation. It
sprang from a vision that would have to be tested and
validated over an incalculable span of time, a vision that
could be pursued only with singlemindedness of purpose
and absolute faith-an ideal that could not be perpetuated
unless one was ready to die for it, or had the strength to
see it snuffed out. The object of the ordeal, then, was
to discover how firm was the patriarch’s faith in the
ultimate divine purpose. It was one thing to start out
resolutely for the Promised Land, but it was a very differ-
ent thing to maintain confidence in the promise when all
appeared lost. The fact is that short of such unswerving
faith, the biblical process could not have survived the many
trials that lay ahead.” May we not conclude, just at this
point, that one basic aspect of the Divine intention is very
simply stated in the recorded affirmation, namely, that
“God did prove Abraham”? But there was another aspect
of God’s purpose that cannot be omitted without vitiating
the significance of the thing commanded. This is ex-
quisitely stated, as follows (SIBG, 248) : “While I admire
the faith and obedience of Abraham, and the cheerful sub-
mission of Isaac-while I place these bright examples be-
fore me-my faith directs me to more glorious objects:
let me with astonishment think of Jehovah bringing His
only begotten Son into the world, permitting him to be
laid on the altar, and through his sacrifice forgiving our
sins! Let me behold Jesus caught, seasonably caught, in
the thickets of men’s wilful transgressions of his own com-
passion, and of our transgressions resting on him, and
borne in our stead! Let me listen to the new testament
in his blood, in which Jehovah swears that men shall be
blessed in him, and all nations shall call him blessed.’’ Ths
we see again that the incidents of the Old Testament record
are fully clarified only in the light of New Testament ful-
filment.
,b * :b 9:. >E
442

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Ultimate Degree of Faith
Gen. 22:1--“And it came to pass after these things,
that God did Prove Abraham,” etc.
By ultinzate we mean the highest, that degree of faith
beyond which one cannot go. This implies, of course, that
there are lesser degrees of faith. Note that faith is defined
scriptually as “the assurance of things hoped for, a convic-
tion with respect to things not seen,” Heb. 11:l; cf. 2
Cor. 4: 16-1 8,
A 7noral command of God requires that a thing be
done because it is right iff respect to the very iiature of
things. The Decalouge is a code of moral law: to identify
it as such one needs only to follow the principle of uni-
versalization, namely, that a man in contemplating a
certain action, by asking himself what the effect would
be if every person would do the same thing under the same
circumstances, can surely see for himself whether his con-
templated action is right and good or wrong and bad.
Tested by this principle, it becomes obvious that idolatry
(of whatever kind), false swearing (blasphemy, perjury),
disrespect for parents, murder, adultery, theft, false wit-
ness (slander, libel) , covetousness, etc., if universalized
would destroy social order, and in all likelihood the human
race itself. (Recall the venerable doctrine of the Seven
Deadly Sins: pride, covetousness (avarice), lust, anger, glut-
tony, envy, and sloth.) The only exception, of course, is
the law of the Jewish Sabbath: this was a positive institu-
tion, and was superseded, with the establishment of the
church, by the Christian Lord’s Day, the first day of the
week (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:l-2, Mark 16:9, Rev. 1:lO).
A positive command, in Scripture, requires a thing to
be done because Divine authority orders it. The chief
characteristic of this kind of command is that there is no
necessary logical connection between the thing commanded
443

22: 1-24 GENESIS ,
and the end in view. The primary reason for such a command
is simply that God has ordained it, for a specific
purpose; and He is to be obeyed if the divine purpose is to
be actualized. Unbelief will ask, Why, and Wherefore,
when confronted with a positive command, but faith obeys
without asking questions. (Of course, such a command has
always ‘the moral virtue (excellepce) of obedience inherent
in its fulfilment). One who obeys a positive command
does so solely out of faith in God and love for God; the
obedience is a manifestation of the %-faith and love which
motivate it. Positive commands are designed to prove the
faith of the professing believer. (Cf. Matt. 7:24-27; John
15:14, 14:15, 8:31-32, Heb. 5:9, etc.). There are three
degrees, we might well say, in obedience to a positive command
in attaining the supreme (ultimate) manifestation
of faith: (1) To obey when one can see clearly that there
is no logical connection between the thing commanded
and the end in view; (2) to obey a divine command when
one can see clearly that the thing commanded cannot do
any good in itself; (3) to obey when one can see clearly
that the thing commanded is in itself wrong, that is, in
relation to the structure of the moral life. Now for some
examples :
1. Exodm 12:l-14.
Can one see any logical connection
between the sprinkling of the blood of a lamb on the
side-posts and lintel of every Israelite habitation in Egypt
and the preservation from death of the firstborn in all
those households? What was there in the blood of a lamb
to save anyone? Why did it have to be the blood of a
male lamb, one without blemish, a male a year old? Why
did the blood have to be sprinkled on the side-posts and
lintels of all the habitations of the Israelites? Could not
God have discerned where His own people were dwelling
without all this ccunnecessary7y “irrelevant” “claptrap”?
What an opening here for fulminations about “nonessentials,”
mere forms,” “mere outward acts,” etc.! Had
444

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
our modern “clergy” been present, no doubt they would
have started an argument with God right on the spot.
But how did it all turn out? Precisely as God had said
it would: those Israelites were not so unbelieving as to re-
fuse to take God at His word, especially in the exigencies
under which they were suffering, and the next morning
it was discovered that in every house where the blood was
present as God had commanded there was salvation, there
was life; and that in every house where the blood was not
present as God had ordered, there was death, lamentation,
suffering, on account of the death of the firstborn.
2. 2 Sam. 6:6-7: Note the statute in the Mosaic Law
that forbade anyone who was not a Levite to touch the
Ark of the Covenant: Num, 15:jl; 3:10, 38; 4:15, 19,
20, The penalty for the violation of this law was death.
But why should it hurt for anyone to touch the Ark,
whether of the tribe of Reuben, Gad, Judah, Benjamin,
or any of the other tribes, anymore than for a Levite to do
it? Surely, the mere touching the ark in itself could not
have harmed anyone! But what did happen when a non-
Levite did put out his hand, as he thought, to prevent the
Ark from falling off the new cart on which David was
having it transported to Jerusalem? He fell dead on the
spot, 2 Sam. 6:7. Does this mean that the Ark was a
fetish, that it had magical power of some kind? Of course
not. The tragic death which Uzzah suffered was for
disobedience to God. Even his good intentions in doing
what God had forbidden did not protect him from the
infliction of the penalty! Uzzah followed his own wisdom
(which should have told him that God Himself would have
protected the Ark from any kind of hurt) and not the
wisdom of God, as multiplied thousands have done in all
ages and are doing today in greater numbers than ever
before in the history of the race. What a warning this
incident is against trifling with God’s Will and Word!
44r

22: 1-24 GENESIS
3. Numbers 21:4-9. The story’of the brazen serpent.
One can see at a glance here, that,.there was no efficacy
in the thing commanded, that is, in itself. What was
there in a piece of brass to heal a human being of disease?
Did it have magical power of some kind? Of course not.
The efficacy was in the willingness.of the people to take
God at His word; when their faith became active, God
kept His promise. It was God who did the healing, not the
serpent of brass; the latter was only, the means of eliciting
their obedience of faith. It will be recalled that this brazen
serpent became in itself an object of worship to the Israelites
in a later age: they burned incense to it, we are told
(2 Ki. 18:4-5). Whereupon King Hezekiah, calling it
Nehushtan, “a piece of brass,” ordered it broken into pieces
and utterly destroyed.
4. 2 Kings j:l-l4.
What an array of details having
no power in themselves to effect the healing of Naaman,
of his leprosy! What possible connections between the
things commanded and the end in view? Was there some
special cleansing power in the water of the Jordan River?
Why should Naaman have to dip himself seven times:
Could not God have healed him without all this “fol-de-
rol”? Certainly., that is, had He chosen to do so? But
God could not have proved Naaman’s willingness to take
Him at His word without some Sort of procedure such as
He ordered. How did things turn out for the Syrian
chieftain? Precisely as God said that it would: when
Naaman had fully completed the required details, arising
from the Jordan after the seventh dipping, “his flesh came
again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.”
5. Joshua 6:l-21. What a war strategy this was, that
Yahwe gave to Joshua to capture the city of Jericho!
What an array of “mere forms,” “mere outward acts,’’
which apparently had no necessary connection with the
end in view! What was there in all this marching to
bring down walls that withstood battering rams and other
446

,
CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
engines of destruction? What special kind of power was
generated by the marching of Joshua’s army, with the Ark
at the center of the procession, once each day for six
successive days and seven times on the seventh day? What
could the people inside Jericho have been thinking about
these repeated military parades? Why the final blowing
of trumpets and shouting by Joshua’s soldiers on the seventh
day? We have heard in recent years of “pious” and “pray-
ing” and “Bible-reading” generals, but we doubt very much
that any of them would have had the faith to carry out
the war program that Joshua executed which brought
about the fall of Jericho. Joshua took God at His word.
He carried out the Divine strategy to the very letter, not
expecting that what he and his army were doing would
bring down the walls, but fully believing that if he did
his part in faith, God would do the rest. And his faith
was rewarded: “the wall came tumbling down.”
What an array of “non-essentials” in all these in-
stances of positive law! Think what the response would
have been if our “theologians’ ’had been on the ground
when these orders were given by the Ruler of the universe!
Why would God authorize all this “nonsense”? Why all
these “mere forms,” “mere outward acts,” “mere external
performances,” etc., etc. What is all this but “blind
obedience” to ordinations that are “without rhyme or
reason”? Oh yes, the theologians, the clergy, the “princes
of the church,” all would have had a field day had they
been recipients of the Divine instructions in these various
instances of the operation of positive divine law.
6. Ve now come to the ultimate of all proofs, surely
the noblest manifestation of the obedience of faith that is
recorded in Scripture. This occurred when God did prove
Abraham by commanding him to offer up Isaac for a
burnt-offering (Gen. 22:l-3). Here was a thing com-
manded which by the universal judgment of mankind was
wrong: no nation has ever been kqown to have been
447

22:1-24 GENESIS
without a distinction between justifiable and unjustifiable
killing, and the kind of killing that is always reckoned to
be unjustifiable is murder, the taking of another man’s
life by one’s own authority “with malice aforethought.”
(Of course, in this instance no “malice aforethought” was
involved; nevertheless, by all human standards the act
was wrong.) Moreover, it was surely wrong to deliberately
kill a son, and the only son at that. And it was doubly
wrong, in this instance, to kill the one who had been born
“out of due season” as the Child of Promise. What an
argument Abraham might have offered against obedience to
this command! How could such an order proceed from
the God who is infinite goodness? Was not this ordina-
tion a complete disavowal by God Himself of all the
promises He had made respecting Abraham and his seed?
No such unbelieving talk, however, fell from Abraham’s
lips. With him there was no occasion for argument:
Yakwe had spoken and it was his portion simply to obey.
We know the rest of the story, up to the very point of
the patriarch’s poising the deadly knife above his son,
lying bound and helpless on the altar. No doubt he would
have carried out the divine order fully, even to the killing
itself, because, we are told, his faith was such that he
“accounted God able to raise Isaac up, even from the dead,
from whence he did also in a figure receive him back”
(Heb. 11:19). It was in this manner that God did actually
prove Abraham and the depth of his faith, not only to
himself, but to all mankind.
What is the application? In consequence of this inci-
dent, the name of Abraham has gone down in sacred history
as the Father of the Faithful and the Friend of God (John
15:14, 2 Chron. 20:7, Jas. 2:23, Rom. 4:11, 16). More-
over, our salvation under the New Covenant is contingent
not on our having the blood of Abraham coursing through
our veins, but on having the faith of Abraham in our
448

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
hearts (John 3:l-8, Rom. 4:13-17, Gal. 3:23-29, Jas,
220-26).
Unbelief will call this obedience of Abraham an act
of blind faith. It is blind faith, of course, to obey another
vzaiz implicitly without question. It is never blind faith
to obey God, for the reason that God iiever CoiimaiZds
meiz to do ai7ything simply to beiiefit Him His conziwands
are always, ultiiiZately, for our good. Theref ore, anything
that God coiiznzaizds is made right by the fact that He
comwagzds it.
In the process of becoming a Christian on the terms
laid down by apostolic authority, the penitent believer is
confronted with one basically positive institution. That
institution is baptism, as ordained by the Great Commission.
It is the only positive institution the Holy Spirit has seen
fit to associate with conversion under the New Covenant.
That baptism is kssentially a positive institution (although
it does carry with it the ?izoral excellence of obedience to
God) is evident from the following considerations. One
can readily see that belief in Christ, repentance from sin,
confession of Christ-all these are necessary to becoming a
Christian. Belief is necessary to change the heart; re-
pentance is necessary to change the will, the disposition,
the course of life. Confession is necessary as a public com-
mitment and testimonial in the presence of, and for the
benefit of, all those who themselves need divine redemption
without which they are lost, both in this world and in
the world to come. Confession is a public commitment
to the new life which the penitent believer has espoused.
But why be baptized? What moral change is effected
in baptism, other than the moral benefit that always fol-
lows obedience to God? We reply that baptism effects no
basic moral change: that change comes in faith and re-
pentance in order that the baptism may be efficacious.
Baptism is essentially traiisitional (1 Pet. 3 :20-21). It is
the abandonment of the old man and the putting on of the
449

22: 1-24 GENESIS
new (Rom. 6: 1-1 1). It is the relinquishing of the old
life of alienation, and the assumption of the new life of
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom.
14:17, Tit. 3 : ~ ) . It is the transitio’nal act in which the
believing penitent renounces allegiance to the world, the
flesh and the devil, and accepts the authority of the Prince
of righteousness. It is the formal act of obedience in which
the one who was formerly an alien, is adopted into the
family of God and thus made an heir of God and joint-
heir with Jesus Christ (Rom. 8: 16-17) of that “inheritance
incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away”
(1 Pet. 1:4, 2:22-25; Acts 26:18). Hence, baptism is
administered “in the name of Christ” (Le., by His
azcthority) , according to the formula, “into the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt.
28:19). It is the divine appointment wherein the re-
pentant believer receives pardon of his sins (in the mind
of God) and is formally inducted into Christ (Acts 2:38,
Col. 2:11-12) and sealed “with the Holy Spirit of promise”
(Eph. 1:13, 2 Cor. 1:21-22; cf. discussions of spiritzial
circztmcision, in foregoing sections herein) .
It is evident that the dipping of a person in water
could not per se have efficacy unto salvation. It is equally
evident that there is no power in water per se to take away
the guilt of sin. And it is quite evident that God could
pardon a believer without baptism as easily as with it, had
He chosen to do so. The fact remains, however, that in
the light of New Testament teaching, we have no indica-
tion that He has chosen to do so. Baptism is said to be
for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), for induction into Christ
(Gal. 3:27) and is therefore a prerequisite of pardon (Acts
10:47-48). This is sufficient for the man of faith. Un-
belief will persist, however, in speaking of baptism as a
CC
non-essential,” a “mere outward act,” a “mere external
performance,” etc. The Apostle Paul, on the contrary,
writes of it as an act of obedience “from the heart” (Rom.
450

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22: 1-24
6:17), hence an act of faith; and the Apostle Peter de-
scribes it as the “appeal of a good conscience toward God”
(1 Pet. 3:21),
Here, then, at the very entrance into the Kingdom,
at the door to the Fold, the issue is placed squarely before
each alien sinner, as to whether he has sufficient faith to
obey a positive command which he can see clearly has no
logical connection, in itself (ix., as an immersion in water)
with the end in view. Here he must make a choice whether
he will do, or not do, what the Lord commands. Here he
must decide whether he will yield to the authority of the
Head of the Church. The tragedy today is that there are
so many to whom religion is little more than a ritual, a
sort of insurance policy against hell-fire; so many who fol-
low the line of least resistance in everything they do, who
have so little conviction and courage, so little love for God
and so little faith in the Lord Jesus, that when they reach
the baptismal pool, they will stop and argue the case, and in
so many instances will turn aside to accept a meaningless
substitute which human theology has provided for the sake
of convenience. What a tragedy! “Oh ye of little faith!”
Jesus was willing to go all the way from Nazareth in Gali-
lee to the Jordan River, some seventy to eighty miles, to
submit to this divine institution and thus do the Father’s
will to the full (Matt. 3:15). This He did, He who was
without sin, to please the Heavenly Father and to set the
right example for all who would follow in His steps. If we
expect to be called His disciples, we certainly will not start
an argument at the baptismal pool! If we do hesitate, or
turn aside, we not only fall short of that obedience which is
necessary for justification, but we also lose ths: rich spiritual
experience which always accompanies the walk of faith
such as Enoch walked, such as Noah walked, such as Abra-
ham walked, such as Moses wallred, such as all the faithful
have walked. Preachers fulminate so glibly about faith,
justification by faith, etc. But faith is precisely the thing
45 1

22:l-24 GENESIS
that is lacking in the professing church of this day and age.
We simply cannot be the spiritual

1,
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11,
12.
13.
14.
CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 ; 1-24
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART THIRTY-FOUR
In what way, according to Chapter 22, did God prove
Abraham? What does the verb prove signify in this
connection?
Show how each successive phrase in the Divine com-
mand here intensified the significance of the command
(according to Rashi) ,
What indicates that God had a particularly important
objective in this instance.
What was the patriarch’s response to what God said
to him?
Where is the land of Moriah traditionally? What facts
seem to justify this tradition?
What reason does Glueck give for questioning this
tradition?
What preparations did Abraham make for the journey?
Do you suppose that Abraham said anything to Sarah
about the purpose of the journey? Explain your
answer.
How old probably was Isaac when this incident
occurred?
From what place did they start on their journey?
How far was it from this place to Jerusalem?
How much time did the journey require? Is this in
harmony with the distance traveled, that is, if the
place of sacrifice was near Jerusalem?
On reaching the place of sacrifice, what did Abraham
and Isaac do? Why did the two go alone to the place
of sacrifice?
What did Isaac carry to the place of sacrifice? To
what New Testament fact does this point directly?
When, probably, did Abraham explain to Isaac what
was to be done? How did Isaac respond? What
does this suggest as to Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross?
45 3

22:1-24 GENESIS ‘
15. Did Abraham show that he was prepared to make
the actual sacrifice of his son?T..What does the writer
of Hebrews tell us about what Abraham thought
actually would happen? What is meant by the statement
that this did happen “in a figure”?
16. How did Abraham reconcile God’s command to sacrifice
Isaac, with His promise that through Isaac there
should come to Abraham a great’posterity?
17. What did the Angel of the Lord do to avert the
sacrifice?
18. What did the name Jehwah-jireh mean? How can
this name be harmonized with what is revealed in
Exo. 6:3?
10. How and in what ways did God renew His divine
promises with respect to Abraham and his seed?
Explain the twofold significance of the Promise.
20. What reason did God give for His renewal of the
Promise at this time?
21. Why was the record of Nahor’s progeny introduced
at this point?
22. What was the basic significance of Abraham’s sacrificial
act?
23. Is it reasonable to conclude that this incident was
for the purpose of showing God’s disapproval of
human sacrifice?
24. In what ways did the Sacrifice of Isaac prefigure the
Sacrifice of God’s Only Begotten?
22. What is Speiser’s explanation of the significance of
Abraham’s supreme trial ?
2 6. What is meant by the ultimate degree of faith?
27. Distinguish between God’s moral and His positive
commands?
28. What are the ascending degrees of faith manifested
in obedience to a positive divine command? What is
the essential character of the ultimate or highest
degree?
424

CONFIRMATION OF COVENANT 22 : 1-24
29, Give examples of positive coinmalids which involve
the lesser degrees of faith?
30, What great lesson is derived froin the history of the
Brazen Serpent?
3 1, Why cannot what is called “blind faith” be involved
in obedience to God’s commands?
32, Explain how Christian baptism, that which is author-
ized by the Great Commission, is basically a positive
command.
33. What is the distinctly spiritual reason for obedience
to Christ in baptism?
34. Explain what is .meant by the ti~atrsifioiral significance
of baptism?
3J. Why, according to His own statement, was Jesus
baptized in the Jordan?
36. In there any ground on which one can rightly assume
that our Lord ever ordained a %on-essential” act?
Mould not such a claim be in itself blasphemy?
37. Review at this point what is meant in Scripture by
spiritual circumcision.

PART THIRTY-HIVE
THE STORY OF ABRAHAM:
HIS PROVISIONS FOR' :POSTERITY
Genesis 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1%
1. Provision of a Burial Place (233120)
1 And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and
twenty years: these were the years bf the life of Sarah. 2
And Sarah died in Kiriatharba (the same is Hebron), in the
land of Canuart: and Abraham cme own for Sarah,
and to weep for her. 3 And A@r
rose up from
before his dead, and spake unto the children of Heth,
saying, 4 I am a stranger and a soKourner with you: give
me a possession of a burying-place'witb you, that I may
bury my dead out of my sight. F- And the children of
Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, 6 Hear us, my
lard; thou art a prince of God among us: in the choice
bf ow sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold
frm thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy
dead. 7 And Abraham rose up, and bowed himself to the
people of the land, even to the children of Heth. 8 And
he communed with them, saying, If it be your mind that
I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and
entreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar, 9 that he may
give me the cave of Machpelah, which he bath, which is
in the end of his field; for the full price let him give it to
me in the midst of yow foy a possession of a burying-place.
10 Now EpKron was sit'tiag in the midst of the children
of Heth: and Ephron the Hittite answered Abrahum in
the audience of the children of Heth, even of all that went
i7a at the gate of his city, saying, 11 Nay, my lord, bear
me: the field give I thee, and the cave that is therein, I
give 2t thee; in the Presence of the children of my people
give, I it thee: bury thy dead. 12 And Abraham bowed
himself down before the people of the land. 13 And he
spake unto Ephon in the audience of the people of the
45 6

PROVISIONS FOR POS,TERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
land, saying, But if thou wilt, I pray thee, hear me: I will
give the price of the field; take it of me, and I will bury
my dead there. 14 And Ephron amwered Abraham, say-
ing unto him, IT My lord, hearken unto me: a piece of
land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that
betwixt me and thee? bury therefwe thy dead. 16 And
Abraham hearkened unto E$hron; and Abraham weighed
to Ephron the silver which he had named in the audience
of the childrefa of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver,
current money with the merchant.
17 So the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelgh,
which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which
was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that
were in all .the border thereof round about, were made
sure 18 unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of
the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate
of his city. 19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his
wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre
(the same is Hebroia), in the land of Canaan. 20 And
the field, and the cave that is therein, were made sure unto
Abraham for a possession of a burying-place by the chil-
dren of Heth.
(1) The Death of Sarah is the next recorded event
in the life of Abraham. At the age of 127 years Sarah
died at Hebron (the earlier name of which was Kiriath-
arba). The fact that Sarah died at Hebron indicates that
Abraham had returned from Beersheba to his old home
there; or he could have sojourned back and forth repeatedly
between Beersheba and Hebron throughout the intervening
years. (It could have been, too, that Sarah was away from
Beersheba, possibly on a visit to her former home, when
she died, vv. 1, 2). “It so happens that Sarah is the only
woman whose age and death are reported in the Scriptures,
as commentators have observed from days of old. This
cannot be without design. She is the mother of all be-
457

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8 GENESIS
lievers, according to 1 Pet. 3:6, and so deserving of some
such distinction” (EG, 640). (For Kiriath-arba, cf, Num.
13:28; Josh. 15:13-14, 21:ll; Judg. 1:20). Abraham
mourned and wept for her: “a reference to formal rites,
which has no bearing, one way or another, on the survivor’s
personal feelings; just so, a Nuzi adoption document pro-
vides that ‘when A dies, B shall weep for him and bury
him’ ” (ABG, 69). But “such demonstrations of grief are
as natural and as proper to the Oriental as is our greater
measure of restraint to us” (EG, 642) ; and we must there-
fore believe that this mourning and weeping was the expres-
sion of deep and sincere sorrow on Abraham’s part.
(2) Negotiations for a Burying-place (vv. 3-16).
As burial within one day’s time after death was the rule
in this land, Sarah’s death made necessary the purchase of
a burial ground. Hence we now have the story of how
Abraham becomes the owner of the field and cave of
Machpelah, by formal purchase from the Hittites, and
there proceeds to bury his dead. Although the land had
been promised to Abraham and his seed, up to this time
God had “given him none inheritance in it, no, not so
much as to set his foot on’’ (Acts 7:5). Now, however,
the sanctity of the desired burying-place demanded that it
be his own. “Abraham acquires proprietary rights in
Canaan: the promise of the Land, 12:7, 13:1S, 15:7, is
beginning to be fulfilled” (JB, 39). Abraham enters into
negotiations with “the sons of Heth,” that is, the Hittites.
The transaction was conducted “with punctilious regard to
all the necessary formalities, and these are recited in detail”
(UBG, 292). “Abraham wanted to purchase a burying-
place in Canaan, and to have the claims t
tained, that he and his nearest relatives m
dust laid there apart from the heathen natives; and might
have it as a pledge and earnest to confirm their faith in
God’s promise of their possession of the whole country in
His due time, cf. 25:9, 47t29-30, 49:31, 50:13, 24-26”
45 8

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
(SIBG, 249). The Sons of Hetb were the Hittites, (The
Hittite Empire was founded about 1800 B.C. by a Indo-
European people who had settled in Canaan and throughout
the Near East in city-states at a much earlier time. Hence
the name is given to an ethnic group living in Canaan
from patriarchal times and until after the Israelite occupa-
tion (cf, Josh. 1:4; Gen. 11:20, Deut. 7:1, Judg. 3:s).
These were called the “children of Heth” (23:J) after
their eponymous ancestor Heth, a son of Canaan (Gen.
10: 1 J ) , The center of the great Hittite empire was in
what is now Turkey; their capital city was Hattusas (or
Boghazkoi) located in the bend of the Halys River. The
discovery of iron is reported to have occurred in this area,
in the region of the Black Sea, during this period of Hittite
hegemony. )
Abraham instituted the negotiations with the frank
statement that he was a sojourner and a stranger in the
land, that is, a kind of resident-alien (a settled sojourner,
so to speak, a long-term resident, but one who lacked the
usual privileges of a citizen, notably, the right to own
land). (Cf. Gen. 12:10, 19:9, 20:1, etc.). The conces-
sion that the patriarch seeks is simply the acquiring of
enough land to serve as a burial site. In the course of the
entire transaction, he behaves, and is treated by the in-
habitants, as a generous and powerful prince. Finally he
strikes a bargain with Ephron the Hittite, in the presence
of the entire populace. (It seems obvious that behind their
generosity “there lurked an aversion to the idea of a pur-
chase” Skinner, ICCG, 3 37). Courteously refusing the use
of their sepulchres, and the offer of a burial-place for his
own use as a gift, Abraham finally succeeds in buying for
its full value of 400 shekels’ weight of silver (“current
money with the merchant”) the Cave of Machpelah, close
to the oak of Mamre, with the field and “all the trees that
were in the field,” in which the Cave was located. Here
Abraham buried Sarah (v. 19); here Abraham himself
459

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8 GENESIS
was buried later by Isaac and Ishmael (25:9) ; here also
were buried Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah
(35:27-29, 47~29-30, 49:31, 50~13).
(a) The Cave of Machpeluh, VY. 17-20. Literally, “the
cave of double.” Some hold that it consisted of two stories;
others that the name indicated that several couples were
to be buried there; still others, that it was a double cave,
one within the other, etc. Many interesting Pacts have
been brought to light by recent archaeological findings
which authenticate the details of the purchase of this
burial-glace. Wiseman writes (NBD, 765) : “Recent
comparisons of the details of Abraham’s purchase of
Machpelah with Middle Assyrian and Hittite laws support
the antiquity of Gen. 23. Thus M. R. Lehmann draws
attention to the inclusion of the number of the trees, the
weighing of silver at the current merchant valuation, and
the use of witnesses at the city-gate where the transaction
was proclaimed (verses 16-1 8) . These accord with Hittite
laws which fell into oblivion by c. 1200 B.C. The desire
of Ephron to sell all the property rather than ‘the cave
at the edge of the field’ (verse 9) may be linked with legal
and feudal requirements of the time.” “At the present
day in many of the outlying villages of Palestine, where
primitive customs are still kept up, I have seen the elders
sitting in the gates conducting public business. In ancient
times the gate of a town or village was the place where
the elders or judges sat, where cases were heard and adjudi-
cated, and where all matters affecting the public welfare
were discusied, Gen. 34:20, Deut. 16:18, Ruth 4:l” (SIBG,
249) . “Hittite real estate transactions made specific
reference to . . the trees on the property” (HSB, 37). “Verses
17, 18 are in the form of a legal contract. Specifications
of the dimensions and boundaries of a piece of land, and
of the buildings, trees; etc., upon it, are common in ancient
cQntracts of sale at all periods’’ (Skinner, ICCG, 33 8).
460

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 ; 1-2 S : 1 8
The modern site of this burial cave is in the famous
sanctuary of Haram (Gunkel, Genesis, 273) at Hebron,
under the great Mosque, It is one of the holiest shrines
of Mohammedanism, .and is venerated also by both Jews
and Christians. Machpelah is mentioned in the Talmud.
Entrance is forbidden Jews and Christians unless they can
secure permission from the Moslem Supreme Council.
“Visitors who have been admitted to the mosque describe
the cenotaphs of Abraham, Isaac, and their wives, as
being covered with elaborately ornamented palls. The
cenotaphs of Jacob and Leah are in a small adjacent struc-
ture. The tombs are said to be in the cave below the
cenotaphs. Moslems claim that the tomb of Joseph is just
outside the Cave of Machpelah, represented by a cenotaph
West of the Mosque of the Women. But see Josh. 24:32”
(HBD, 409). The whole enclosure, we are told, “is
jealously guarded by massive stone walls, probably of Hero-
dian work, though the antiquity of the cave itself and its
furnishings has not. been verified by archaeological re-
search” (NBD, 765). “The cave below has never been
examined in modern times, but it is stated by its guardians
to be double. There is no reason to doubt that the tradi-
tion as to the site has descended from biblical times; and
it is quite probable that the name Makepelah is derived
from the feature just referred toyy (Skinner, ICCG, 339).
2. Provision of a Wife for Isaac (24:l-67)
’
1 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age:
and Jehovah had blessed Abraham in all things. 2 And
Abrahain said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that
ruled mer all that he had, Put, I Pray thee, thy hand under
nzy thigh: 3 and I will ?nuke thee swear by Jehovah, the
God of heaven and the God of the earth, that thou &lt
mot fake a wife for my son of the daughters of the
Canaanites, among whoin I dwell: 4 but thou shalt go unto
my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife far my
461

2 3 : 1-2 S : 1 8 GENESIS
son IsrFac. 5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure
the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land:
must I needs bring thy son again unto the land frm
whence thou cumesf? 6 And’ Abraham said unto him,
Bewure thou that thou bring not my son thither again.
7 Jehovah, the God of heaven, who took me from my
father’s house, md frm the lund of my nativity, and who
spake unto me, and who sware unto me, saying, Unto thy
seed will I give this land; he will send his angel before
thee, and thou shalt tde a wife for my sm from thence.
8 And if the woman be not willing to follow thee, then
thou shalt be clear from this my oath; ody t h shalt not
bring my son thither again. 9 And the servant put his
hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware
to him cmcerning this matter.
10 And the servant took ten cgmels, of the camels of
his master, alzd departed, hawing all goodly things of his
master’s in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia,
unto the city of Nahor. 11 And he made the camels
to kneel down without the city by the well of water at
the time of evening, the time that women go out to draw
water. 12 And he said, 0 Jehovah, the God of my master
Abraham, send me, f pray thee, good speed this day, and
show kindness unto my master Abraham. 13 Behold, I am
standing by the fountain of water; and the daughters of
the men of the city are coming out to draw water: 14 and
let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shalltsay,
Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and
she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also:
let the same be she that thou bast appointed for thy servant
haw; alzd.thereby shall I know that thou bast showed
kindness unto my master. 15 And it came to pass, before
he hrFd done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who
was born to Bcthuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor,
Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shodderi
16 And the dmsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin,
462

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 23 : 1-2 5 : 18
neither had any man known her: and she went dow,n to
the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and cume up. 17 And
tbe servant rafz to meet her, and said, Give me to drink,
1‘ Pray thee, a little water from fby pitcher. 18 And she
said, Drirrk, my Cord: and she busted, qnd let down her
pitcher upon her hand, and gave hiin drink. 19 And when
she bud done giving him drink, she said, I will draw for
thy camels also, until they have done drinking. 20 And
she hasted, and emptied her Pitcher into the trough, and
ran again umto the well to draw, and drew for all his
camels. 21 And the man looked steadfastly on her, hold-
ing his peace, to kpow whether Jehovah had made his
journey prosperous OY not. 22 And it came to pass, as
the cuinels had done drinking, that the man took a golden
ring of half a shekel weight, aizd two bracelets for her
bands of tciz shekels weight of gold, 23 and said, Whse
dauphtm art thou? tell me, I Pray thee. Is there room in
thy father’s house for us to lodge in? 24 And she mid unto
him, I am the daughter of Bethel the son of Milcah,
whom she bare unto &ahor. 2)’ She said moreover unto
him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room
to lodge in. 26 And the man bowed his head, and wor-
shipped Jehovah. 27 And he said, Blessed be Jehouah, the
God of my master Abraham, who bath not forsaken his
loviizg-kindness and his truth toward my master: as for
me, Jehovah bath led me in the way to the house of my
master’s brethren.
28 And the damsel ran, and told her mother’s house
accordiizg to these words. 29 Aid Rebekab had a brother,
and his name was Laban: and Labun ran, out unto the man,
unto the fountain. 30 And it came to pass, when he saw
the ring, and the bracelets upon his sister’s hands, and when
he heard the words of Rebekak his sister, saying, Ths
spake the mait unto we; that he came unto the man; and,
behold, he was standing by the camels at the fountain. 31
And he said, Come in, thou blessed of Jehovah; wherefove
463

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8 GENESIS
standest thou without? for I have prepared the house, and
room for the camels. 32 And the man came into the house,
and he ungirded the camels; and he gave straw and prov-
ender for the camels, and water to wash Ais feet and the
feet of the men that were with him. 33 And there was
set food before him to eat: but he said, I will naf eat,
until I have told mine errand. And he said, Speak on.
34 And he said, I am Abraham’s servant. 35 And Jehowah
hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become gr.eat:
and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold,
and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels dnd asses.
36 And Sarah my master’s wife bare a son to my master
when she wl~s old: and unto him hath he givela all that he
hath. 37 And my master made me swear, saying, Thou
shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the
Canaanites, in whose land I dwell: 38 but tho% shalt go
unto my father’s house, and to my kindred, and take a
wife for my 50%. 39 And I said unto my master, Per-
adventure the woman will not follow me. 40 And he sqid
unto me, Jehovah, before whom I walk, will send his angel
with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife
for my son of my kindred, and of my father’s house: 41
then shalt thou be clear from my oath, when thou comest
to my kindred; and if they give her not to thee, thou shalt
be clear from my oath. 42 And I came this day unto the
fwntkn, and said, 0 Jehovah, the God of my master
Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go:
43 behold, I am standing by the foun’tain of water; and
let it come to pm, that the maiden that cmeth forth to
draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I Pray thee, ot little
water from thy pitcher to*drink; 44 and she shd1 say to
me, Both drink thm, and I will also draw for thy camels:
let the same be the woman whom Jehovah hatb appointed
for my master’s son. 4J And before I bad dowe speaking
in my heart, behold, Rebekah came forth with her pitcher
on her shoulder; and she went down unto the fountain, and
464

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 F : 1 8
drew: and I said unto her. Let me driizk, I prwy thee. 46
And she wade haste, aiid let down her pitcher from her
shoulder, and said, Drink, aiid I will give thy camels drink
also: so I drank, an,d she made the camels drink also, 47
Art.d I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And
she said, The daughter of Bethel, Nabor’s son, whom
Milcah bare unto him: and I put the ring upon her nose,
and the bracelets upon her hands. 48 And I bowed my
bead and worshipped Jehovah, aid blessed Jehovah, the
God of my master Abraham, who had led me in the right
way to take my master’s brother’s daughter fow his son.
49 And now if ye will deal kindly and truly with my
master, tell me: and if not, tell me; that I may turn to
the right hand, or to the left.
50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered wnd said, The
thiisg proceedeth from Jehovah: we cannot speak unto
thee bad or good. 51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take
her, and go, and let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as Je-
hovah bath spoken. 52 And it came to pass, that, when
Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself
down to the earth unto Jehovah. 53 And the servant
brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and
raiment, and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her
brother and to her mother precious things. ?4 And they
did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and
tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he
said, Send me away unto my master. 55 And her brother
and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a few
days, at the least ten; after that she shall go. 56 And he
said unto them, Hinder me not, seeing Jehovah bath pros-
pered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.
57 And they said, We will call the damsel, and inquire at
her mouth. 58 Anrd they called Rebekah, and said unto
her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.
59 And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse,
and Abraham’s servant, and his men. 60 And they blessed
46 5

2 3 : 1-2 S : 1 8 GENESIS
Rebekab, and said unto her, Our sister, be thou the mother
of thousands of ten thousmds, and let thy seed possess the
gate of those that hate them.
61 And Rebekuh arose, and her damsels, and they rode
upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant
took Rebekah, and went his way. 62 And Isaac came from
the way of Beer-lahai-roi: for he dwelt in the lund of the
South. 63 And Isuac went out to meditate in the field
at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and sm, and,
behold, there were camels coming. 64 And Rebekah lifted
up her eyes, and when she saw Isuac, she uljghted from
the camel. 65 And she said unto the servant, Whut man
2s this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the
servant said, It is my master: and she took her veil, and
covered herself. 66 And the servant told Isaac all the
things that he had done. 67 And Isuuc brought her into
his mother Sarah‘s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became
his wife; and he loved her: and lsuac was comforted after
his mother’s death.
(1) AbrahJam’s steward commissioned (vv. 24:l-9).
After the death of Sarah, Abraham returned to the region
around Beersheba. He was now in his declining years:
“well-stricken in age” must, by way of contrast to IS:II,
emphasize that the infirmities of age were becoming more
and more evident. Hence, there was a most important
matter for the patriarch to attend to without delay, namely,
to arrange a marriage for his son Isaac. There is nothing
here to indicate that Abraham’s death was imminent. Evi-
dently the need for taking steps along this line had been
suggested by Sarah’s death and by the fact that the
patriarch felt the need of attending to this duty while he
was still well enough physically and mentally to do so.
He felt, too, that the step was necessary lest, in case he
should die, Isaac might take a wife from among the idola-
trous Canaanites (vv. 3, 4). (The Canaanites-a term
466

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 23 : 1-2 5 ; 18
used collectively here as in many other places for any
number of different ethnic groups-were heathen given
over to destruction and so very improper to be matched
with Isaac (cf. 26:34-35, 27:46. Exo. 34:16, 2 Cor. 6:14-
1 5 ) , but Abraham’s friends in Mesopotamia worshipped
the true God, although they also served their idols: (vv.
31, SO; 31:19, 30). “The father’s sole initiative in this
direction and the entire passivity of Isaac on the occasion
are to be accounted for by the fact that, first, it was
primarily the function of parents to provide for the mar-
riage of their children in those days; and, in the second
place, Isaac was by character and disposition much inclined
to be passive and unaggressive” EG, 6f6). “Abraham was
induced to provide for this [Isaac’s marriage1 in a mode in
harmony with the promise of God, quite as much by his
increasing age as by the blessing of God in everything,
which necessarily instilled the wish to transmit that blessing
to a distant posterity” (BCOTP, 257).
What follows here is om of the most idyllic stories in
all hman literature. “The chapter is one of the most
perfect specimens of descriptive writing that the Book of
Genesis contains. It is marked by idyllic grace and sim-
plicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes and incidents, and
a certain ‘epic’ amplitude of treatment, seen in the repeti-
tion of the story in the form of a speech. These artistic
elements so predominate that the primary ethnographic
motive is completely submerged. It may be conjectured
that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement of the
Aramean element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred
story of Jacob and his wives. But if such a historical
kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the graphic de-
lineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life,
which is to us the main interest of the passage. We must
also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s
providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer
to prayer” (Skinner, ICCG, 339-340).
467

2 3 : 1-2 S : 1 8 GENESIS
Abraham’s steward, “his servant, the elder of his house,
that ruled over all that he had,” is usually taken to have
been the Eliezer of Damascus (1 s :2) who some sixty years
previously vas regarded as the heir presumptive to Abra-
ham’s house. However, “it seems a rather rare case that
one servant should be in another man’s employ for such a
length of time. In fact, it would seem that Eliezer must
have been in Abraham’s employ more than twenty years
to arrive at a position of such influence as he held acdord-
ing (to 11:12. That would necessitate by the time of this
chapter eighty consecutive years of service!” Still and all,
this man of ch. 24 had the complete management of Abra-
ham’s household; he was “the one ruling” all that Abraham
had. Surely this indicates ripe experience and great trust-
worthiness!
(2) The Oath. Abraham put the steward under oath
in order that his wishes might be inviolably fulfilled, even
if he (Abraham) should die in the interim. He made the
steward swear that he would not take a wife for his son
from among the daughters of the Canaanites, but would
bring back a wife from his (Abraham’s) native country
and his kinsfolk. “Put thy hand under my thigh,” etc.
“This custom, which is only mentioned here and in chap.
47:29, the so-called bodily oath, was no doubt connected
with the significance of the hip as the part from which
the posterity issued (46:26), and the seat of vital power;
but the early Jewish commentators supposed it to be
especially connected with the rite of circumcision” (BCO
TI?, 257). (Cf. 35:11, Exo. 1:S). For the Jewish view,
note the following: “When one swears, he takes a sacred
object in his hand, such as the Scroll of the Law or the
phylacteries. The circumcision was the first precept of
God to him [Abraham], and had also come to him only
through great pain; hence it was particularly precious to
him, and so he ordered his servant to put his hand upon
it when taking the oath (Rashi). This is done when a
468

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
superior adjures an inferior, such as a master his servant
or a father his son who also owes him obedience: cf. 47:20
(Rashbam). It was the custom in those days for a servant
to take an oath in this manner, placing his hand under his
master’s thigh, the latter sitting upon his hand. This signi-
fied that the servant was under his master’s authority. It
is still the practice in India (Abraham Ibn Ezra)” (SC,
122). “The same gesture as in 47:29; contact with the
genital organs is intended to make the oath inviolable” (JB,
41). “A reference to an oath by the genital organs, em-
blems of the life-giving power of deity” (IBG, 652). “The
symbolism of this act is not clear. At any rate, the pledge
thus elicited was evidently a most solemn one, for it carried
with it a curse or ban in the event of non-compliance.
Since sons are said to issue from their father’s thigh (46:26,
Exo. 1:5), an oath that involved touching this vital part
might entail the threat of sterility for the offender or the
extinction of his offspring. The only other instance of
the same usage in the Bible, 47:29, is linked, like the present,
to a man’s last request-always a solemn occasion” (ABG,
178). “Note passages such as 46:26, Exo. 1:5, Judg. 8:30.
Consequently, this form of oath has particular regard to the
descendants and is taken in reference to them. But we
cannot stop short with this correct statement. For when
we consider how eagerly from the time of Adam believers
looked forward to a Savior that was to be born, and also
how Abraham (12:3) knew and believed that from his own
line such a Savior was to follow, we cannot but accept
the orthodox view held by the churchfathers from days
of old, that this oath was administered in view of the Savior
to come from Abraham’s line. The whole course of pro-
cedure builds upon this prominent fact. This same form
of oath is found besides only in 47:29. Consequently, we
do not find here a remnant of some old custom now no
longer understood, nor is this a remnant of some phallic
cult, nor was this an oath by the wzembrum virile, for the
469

23: 1-25 :18 GENESIS
hand was placed under the thigh, nor are the present-day
analogies referred to by commentators as still obtaining
among Arabs and Egyptians a good illustration or parallel.
Here was a godly oath by a godly man taken and ad-
ministered in the light o€ his greatest hope, the coming
Savior. ‘Yahweh,’ as the covenant God, is most appropri-
ately referred to as the one by whom the servant is to
swear” (EG, 659).
(3) The God of heaven and the God of the earth,
v. 3. This phrase is an affirmation of the Divine omnipo-
tence. It is especially in keeping with the spiritual theme
of God’s providence which pervades the narrative through-
out. We must understand that it was not because the
people in Canaan did not wish to give their daughters in
marriage to Issac that Abraham sent his servant to Meso-
potamia; Abraham was a wealthy man and could have
made any marital arrangement for his son that he desired.
He simply did not want the covenant-heir to become en-
tangled with a Canaanite woman and her idolatrous back-
ground. He was looking toward the protection of the
purity of the Seed (Gal. 3 : 16). Scripture tells us that he
had all things, wealth, honor, long life and children, and
now he lacked only grandchildren. “Being old and
wealthy, he feared that in the event of his death someone
might bribe Eliezer to select an unfit wife for ’Isaac;
hence he had to adjure him” (SC, 122). “T ive is
a natural concern for the purity of the stock.” We surely
have here evidence “of the exalted conception of God pre-
vailing among the patriarchs.”
Vu. 5-8. It was necessary that the steward should
know the full meaning of the oath before he took it (Jer.
5:2, Prov. 13:16). The servant’s fear seems to be, not that
he would fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that the maiden
selected might not be willing to be separated such a distance
from her relatives; in the event of such a development, he
asked, would the patriarch want Isaac to be returned to
470

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
the land of his fathers? Would the oath bind him to take
Isaac back to Haran? The suggestion elicited from the
patriarch “a last utterance of his unclouded faith in God,”
Yahwe, said Abraham, had taken him from his father’s
house and had promised him and his seed under oath that
they should have the land (Canaan) for a possession. He
also discharged the servant, in case of failure to procure a
bride and bring her back willingly to his place of sojourn-
ing, from the oath he had taken, being fully assured him-
self that Yahwe, the God of heaven, would seqzd His aagel
to providentially guide events in such a way that the
Divine promise would be fully actualized. There was no
doubt in Abraham’s mind that the servant would bring
back the bride-to-be, because all this was God’s doing in
fulfilment of His eternal purpose. “God had ordered
Abraham’s departure from Mesopotamia; it was therefore
improper that either he or his son should return thither,
where they would be tempted to a partial idolatry” (SIBG,
251). To sum up Abraham’s faith: on no account, said
he, must Isaac leave the land of promise, because such a
move would be a final act of unbelief and disobedience,
v. 8. Whereupon the servant, understanding clearly the
nature of his mission, and feeling satisfied in all matters
that impinged on his conscience, “put his hand under the
thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concern-
ing the matter,” v. 9.
(4) The Servant at the Well, vv. 10-15. Taking ten
camels to bring home the bride-to-be and her attendants
and “all goodly things” sent by his master to be presents
to the bride and her relatives, the steward of Abraham’s
house traveled to Mesopotamia, “to the city of Nahor,”
evidently Haran ( 11 : 3 1, 12 :4), where Nahor dwelt.
(Note the Hebrew for Mesopotamia, Aram-naharctiw, i.e.,
“Aram of the two rivers.” This was Central Mesopotamia,
originally the region within the great bend of the Euphra-
tes. The area was also known as Paddan-Aram, “field of
47 1

23: 1-25: 18 GENESIS
Aram” (21i:20, 28:2). Some authorities think that “the
city of Nahor” was a town near Haran, with slightly
different spelling in Hebrew from Nahor, Abraham’s
brother, v. 15). On arriving at his destination, the servant
“made his camels to kneel down without the city by the
well of water at the time of evening, the time that women
go out to draw water” (v. 11). Note his Prayer for a
sign, again evidence of dependence on the leading of Yahwe
(cf. Judg. 6:36-40, 1 Sam. 14:8ff.) All authorities are
agreed on the fidelity of this picture to Eastern life.
(5) The Servant and Rebekab, vv. 15-27. V. 14-
“This token the servant asked not from presumption or
distrust, but as directed by the Spirit of God”: Judg. 6:17,
37, 39; 1 Sam. 6:7-9, 14:8-10; 20:7; 12:17; Isa. 7:ll-14,
38:7, 8; Exo. 4:2-9). “The personal humility and fidelity
displayed by this aged servant are only less remarkable than
the fervent piety and childlike faith which discover them-
selves in the method he adopts for finding the bride.
Having cast the matter upon God by prayer, as a concern
which specially belonged to him, he fixes upon a sign by
which God should enable him to detect the bride designed
for Isaac” (PCG, 301). “The matter in hand is of extra-
ordinary importance. A wife is to be found for the heir
of promise. This was a special concern of God, and so the
single-hearted follower of Abraham makes it. He takes
upon himself the choice of a maiden among those that
come to draw, to whom he will make the request of a
particular act of kindness to a stranger, and he prays God
that the intended bride may be known by a ready com-
pliance with his request. The three qualifications, then,
in the mind of the venerable domestic for a bride for his
master’s son, are a pleasing exterior, a kindly disposition,
and the approval of God” (MG, 354). “And it came to
pass, before he hzd done speaking:’ that the answe,r came,
in the form of a “damsel, very fair to look upon, a virgin,’’
then as if to emphasize this last-stated fact, the added
472

I
PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 18
statement, “neither had any man known her,” v. 16,
(This was of great importance, of course, in guaranteeing
the ethnic purity of the promised seed, and hence of the
Messianic Line.) Thus did the maiden satisfy the first
criterion demanded by the servant. The damsel, we are
told, and she herself confirmed the fact (vv. 24, 47),
was the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Nahor by Milcah,
and the sister of Laban (v. 20, also 11:27-29, 22:ZO-24).
Cf. 29:5, “Laban, the son of Nahor”: “Laban is called by
Jacob the son of Nahor, that is, his grandson, with the usual
latitude of relative names in Scripture, cf. 28:13,” MG,
391). Rebekah “went down to the fountain,, aiid filled
her pitcher, aizd came up.” In Eastern wells there were
steps down to the surface of the water. The servant was
watching her in silence, no doubt delighted by her modest
and gracious demeanor; then he ran to meet her and pre-
sented his request with which she complied at once, giving
him water to drink from her pitcher. But she did even
more: she graciouly drew water for the camels until their
thirst was fully slaked. The servant must have been wait-
ing in wonder and silence as he took note of the ample
fulfilment of the sign. This maiden presented a pleasing
exterior, and a kindly disposition, and in everything she
did was manifesting the approval of Yahwe. He then
presented the maiden with the nose-ring of gold (Ezek.
16:ll-12) and the bracelets, not as the bridal gifts but as
a reward for the service she had rendered. He wants to
know who her kindred were and whether they had the
means and the inclination to entertain a stranger (as inns
were not yet in existence). Whereupon she introduced
herself as the daughter of his master’s nephew and assured
him of the hospitable accomodations which were at his
disposal. And the old man, overwhelmed, bowed his head
and praised God for all the manifestations of His provi-
dence. Rebekah, in wonderment herself, reported the
startling news to her mother’s house, i.e., tent: “the
47 3

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 18 GENESIS
daughter’s course naturally tends to the mother when such
startling news is to be communicated; besides, the women
had their separate compartments, as we gather also from
31:33f.--a separate tent” (EG, 672). (Such notions as
that this was a relic of a matriarchy, or that the father
was dead, are entirely gratuitous.)
(6) The Servant’s Narrative, vy. 28-49.
Laban now
apparently takes over the formalities of hospitality, “inspired
by the selfish greed for which that worthy was noted
in tradition.” “Laban was better known through his
g,randfather (Nahor) than through his father Bethuel.
It may also be that Bethuel was of little account, a5 we
find Laban answering before him, cf. 24:fO” (SC, 168).
When Laban saw the presents which the steward had given
his sister, he recognized that the envoy was from some man
of wealth and position and became almost obsequious in
his attentions. He invited the servant (whom we believe
to have been Eliezer) into his house, unmuzzled the camels,
gave “straw and provender” for them, and then washed
the feet of the servant and the feet of the men who were
with him. The crowning act of hospitality in an Eastern
household was the presentation of food to the visitors.
In this case, however, the faithful servant insists that he
must deliver his message before partaking of the friendly
meal with his host. It should be noted that Laban addressed
Eliezer with the words, Tome in, thou blessed of Jehovah,”
etc. Evidently the name of Jehovah was not entirely unfamiliar
to Laban’s ears: “the knowledge and worship of
the living God, the God of truth and mercy, was still retained
in the family of Nahor” (MG, 355), or at least it
would seem so. Or, it is possible that Laban addressed
Eliezer as the blessed of Jehovah, as a ,result of hearing the
words of the latter, who hqd called Abraham’s God Jehovah.
The servant now di
arges his commission before
partaking of the food set re him. Beginning with the
account of his master’s possessions and family affairs, he
474

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 S : 1 8
describes with considerable minuteness his search for a
wife for Isaac and the success which he had met with thus
far, Then, v. 49, he pressed his suit, emphasizing the
providential guidance which Yahwe had seen fit to give
him, even to the granting of the “sign” which was to him
proof that Rebekah was the desired bride, both desired and
divinely identified. Laban and Bethuel also recognized
in all this the guidance of God, saying, “we cannot speak
unto thee bad or good,” that is, we cannot add a word,
cannot alter anything (Num. 24:13, 2 Sam. 13:22).
“That Rebekah’s brother Laban should have taken part
with her father in deciding, was in accordance with the
usual custom (cf. 34:5, 11, 25; Judg. 21:22, 2 Sam. 13:22),
which may have arisen from the prevalence of polygamy,
and the readiness of the father to neglect the children
(daughters) of the wife he cared for least” (KD, BCOTP,
260). V. J2-After receiving the assent of Laban and
Bethuel to the union, the servant “bowed himself down to
the earth unto Jehovah” (vv. 50-52). He then gave all
the presents to Rebekah and her kinsmen which Abraham
had sent; then, when this ceremony was all finished, they
partook of the feast provided by the host.
(7) Rebekah’s departure, vv. 50-67. Obviously the
matter is settled in accordance wtih custom. In the gifts
for Rebekah’s relatives, it has been said that we could have
a survival of the practice of purchase-price of a wife
(34:12, Exo. 22:16, 1 Sam. 18:25); in this narrative, how-
ever, what is done takes place from a more refined idea
of marriage, “from which the notion of actual purchase
has all but disappeared” (ICCG, 346). In Islam, we are
told, these customs have come to be synonymous with the
dowry.
The next morning Eliezer expressed his desire to set
off at once on the journey home. The relatives, however,
wished to keep Rebekah with them for “a few days, at
least ten.” But when the maiden herself was consulted,
47j

2 3 : 1-2 J : 1 8 GENESIS 1 ’
she decided to go without delay. .,So “they blessed Re-
bekah,” and said to her, “Be thou the mother of thousands
of ten thousands,” etc., that is, of an innumerable off-
spring, and “let thy seed possess the gate of those that hate
them” (cf. Gen. 22: 17). Thus did Rebekah and her
“damsels” start the long journey back to the Land of
Promise, escorted by Eliezer and his - accompanying retinue
of male servants. The long trip from “the city of Nahor”
back to Hebron and evidently on .to the region of Beer-
sheba must have taken a month at least. When the caravan
arrived in the vicinity of “the land, of the South” (the
Negeb), Isaac was just returning from a visit to the well
Be-er-la-hai-roi ( 1 5 : 14) ; and “at the eventide” (the corn-
ing on of the evening), we are told, he went out in the
field “to meditate,” v. 63. Had he been to the well of
Hagar “which called to mind the omnipresence of God,
and there, in accordance with his contemplative character,
had laid the question of his marriage before the Lord”?
Or had he merely traveled to that region to look after
his flocks and herds? Certainly the purpose of his going
into the field to meditate must have had something to do
with his marriage and subsequent future life. Just at a
certain moment of time, the caravan from Mesopotamia
ajrived at the very spot where Isaac was meditating; and
Rebekah, as soon as she saw the man in the field coming
to meet them, hastily descended from her camel to receive
him, “according to Oriental custom, in the most respectful
manner.” Certainly her premonition had been that this
must be her future husband, and verifying her insight by
actual inquiry and identification, she immediately “en-
veloped herself in her veil, as became a bride when meeting
the bridegroom” (BCOTP, 261). “The servant then re-
lated to Isaac the result of his journey; and Isaac conducted
the maiden into the tent of Sarah his mother, and she
became his wife, and he loved her, and was consoled after
his mother, Le., for his mother’s death” (ibid., p. 261).
476

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 J ; 1 8
It seems obvious (from v. 67) that Sarah’s death had
affected Isaac deeply. Rebekah’s arrival proved to be a
source of solace and strength. (As a matter of fact,
subsequent events sliow that the wife was the stronger
willed of the two: to say that Isaac was not characterized
by aggressiveness is putting it mildly: it would be more
nearly right, we think, to speak of him as “henpecked,”)
It seems that “out of respect for Sarah, her tent remained
dismantled after her death until Rebekah came” (SC, 132).
Dr. Speiser again calls our attention to the fact that
the details recorded about Isaac’s marriage. can no longer
be regarded as doubtful; any notion that the story was
invented, he says, should be dispelled by what we know
today about Hurrian marriage practices-which were
normative in the region of Haran-when the brother acted
in place of the father. “The pertinent marriage contract
would then come under the heading of ‘sistership docu-
ment.’ A composite agreement of this kind would embody
the following specifications: (a) the principals in the case,
(b) nature of the transaction, (c) details of payments,
(d) the girl’s declaration of concurrence, (e) penalty
clause. A close study of vss. 50 ff. should show that what
we have there is virtually a restatement, in suitable literary
form, of such a ‘sistership document.’ For principals we
have this time, on the one hand, Abraham’s servant as the
spokesman for the father of the groom, and, on the other
hand, Laban as the responsible representative of the pro-
spective bride. The transaction is thus necessarily of the
‘sistership’ type, since it is the girl’s brother who acts on
the request. The emissary gives presents to the girl, but
does not neglect the ‘gifts’ for her brother and mother,
which must cover the customary bride payment. Most
significant of all, in view of the detailed evidence from
Nuzi, is the statement that Rebekah herself should be con-
sulted (57) ; her reply is in the affirmative, ‘I will go’
(58). The Nuzi text says in similar cases , . . ‘myself
477

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8 GENESIS .& 1
and my brother (agree to this marriage) ’ . . . or (I do
this) of my own free will.’ The only thing, then, that is
missing is the penalty clause, which, mould surely be out
of place in a literary transcript” (ABG, 184-185). This
author takes the position, of course, that “there can be little
doubt that Bethuel was no longer alive at the time,- which
is why Laban was free to exercise his prerogatives as
brother.” The evidence cited to ’support this view, by
way of contrast with those suggested above, is (1) that in
v. 50, the listing of the father after the son is irregular;
(2) that what is worse, no gifts for the father are
mentioned in v. 53, although Rebekah’s “brother and
mother” are mentioned as recipients; (3) similarly, in v.
$5, it is again “her brother and her mother” who ask that
the prospective bride postpone her journey, whereas nothing
is said about the father. Various genealogical references
to Bethuel (vv. 15, 24; also 22:22, 23, and 1$:20) present
no difficulty, however. Speiser concludes: “The inclusion
of Bethuel in vs. $0 is due either to a marginal gloss inspired
by the genealogical references, or to some textual
misadventure” (ibid., 184). We have tried to present
all aspects of this problem: the student may draw his own
conclusions. It should be kept in mind that in any and
all such trivia no question of the fundamental integrity of
the Bible is involved.
3. Abraham’s Provisions for His Variows Lines (25:l-
18)
(1) The Line by Keturah (25:1-4)
1 And Abraham took another wife, and her name
was Keturah. 2 And she bare him Zimran, lmzd Johhan,
and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shah. 3 And
Jokshan begat Skeba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan
were Asshrim, and Letushim, and Leummim. 4 And the
sons of Midian: Ephab, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida,
and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
478

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
A chronological problem arises here. The following
excerpts will suffice to make it clear. “Abraham’s mar-
riage to Keturah is generally supposed to have taken place
after Sarah’s death, and his power to beget six sons at so
advanced an age is attributed to the fact, that the AI-
mighty had endowed him with new vital and reproductive
energy for begetting the son of the promise. But there is
no firm ground for this assumption; as it is not stated any-
where, that Abraham did not take Keturah as his wife till
after Sarah’s death. It is merely an inference drawn from
the fact, that it is not mentioned till afterwards; and it is
taken for granted that the history is written in strictly
chronological order. But this supposition is precarious,
and is not in harmony with the statement, that Abraham
sent away the sons of the concubines with gifts during
his own lifetime; for in the case supposed, the youngest
of Keturah’s sons would not have been more than twenty-
five or thirty years old at Abraham’s death; and in those
days, when marriages were not generally contracted before
the fortieth year, this seems too young for them to have
been sent away from their father’s house. This difficulty,
however, is not decisive. Nor does the fact that Keturah
is called a concubine in ver. 6, and in 1 Chron. 1:32,
necessarily show that she was contemporary with Sarah,
but may be explained on the ground that Abraham did
not place her on the same footing as Sarah, his sole wife,
the mother of the promised seed” (KD-BCOTP, 261-
262).
Murphy (MG, 358-3j9) : “According to the laws of
Hebrew composition, this event may have taken place
before that recorded in the close of the previous chapter.
Of this law we have several examples in this very chapter.
And there is nothing contrary to the custOms of that period
in adding wife to wife. We cannot say that Abraham
was hindered from taking Keturah in the lifetime of Sarah
479

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8 GENESIS
by any moral feeling which would not also have hindered
him from taking Hagar. It has also been noticed that
Keturah is called a concubine, which is thought to imply
that the proper wife was still living; and that Abraham
was a very old man at the death of Sarah. But, on the
other hand, it is to be remembered that these sons were
in any case born after the birth of Isaac, and therefore
after Abraham was renewed in vital powers. If the re-
newal of vigor remained after the birth of Isaac, it may
have continued some time after the death of Sarah, whom
he survived thirty-eight years. His abstinence from any
concubine until Sarah gave him Hagar is against his taking
any other during Sarah’s lifetime. His loneliness on the
death of Sarah may have prompted him to seek a com-
panion of his old age. And if this step was delayed until
Isaac was married, and therefore separated from him, an
additional motive would impel him in the same direction.
Ha was not bound to raise this wife to the full rights of
a proper wife, even though Sarah were dead. And six
sons might be born to him twenty-five years before his
death. And if Hagar and Ishmael were dismissed when
he was about fifteen years old, so might Keturah when
her youngest was twenty or twenty-five. We are not
warranted, then, still less compelled, to place Abraham’s
second marriage before the death of Sarah, or even the
marriage of Isaac. It seems to appear in the narrative
in the order of time.” “The promise (17:4-6) that Abra-
ham should be exceedingly fruitful and the father of many
nations, looks beyond the birth of Isaac, and finds its ful-
filment in other descendants as well. This, like most other
alleged discrepancies, is found not in the text itself, but
in arbitrary critical assumptions.” (UBG, 308). There is
no way of determining with any degree of certainty
whether Abraham was still living when Issae and Rebekah
were married, or, if so, how long he lived after that event.
480

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 Y : 1 8
As for the tribes that descended from these six sons
of Keturah, efforts to identify them have not been very
successful. (Cf. 1 Chron. 1:32-33.) (Incidentally, who
was Keturah? Rashi identifies her with Hagar “who re-
ceived the name because her deeds were as comely as
‘incense’ (ketoretb) ; also, because she kept herself ‘chaste’
(kasber, cognate root to katar, of which Keturah is the
passive participle), from the time that she separated from
Abraham’’ (SC, 32). Such an identification, however,
cannot be harmonized with the plural, c‘c~ncubine~,7’
25: 6,). It seems obvious that these tribes, descendants of
Keturah and her sons by Abraham, peopled a considerable
part of Arabia to the south and the east of the Promised
Land, under the name of Midianites (Exo. 2:15) among
whom Moses took refuge, the Sabaeans (Sheba, Job 1:15,
6; 19; 1 Ki. lO:l), the Shuhites (Job 2:11), the Dedanites,
etc. “The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites
acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites
or Edomites are represented as the offspring of Abraham
by a second marriage, cf. 1 Chron. 1:32 ff.” (ICCG, 349).
There are named here six sons of Abraham, seven grandsons,
and three great-grandsons, making sixteen descendants by
Keturah.
(2) Abraham’s Final Disposition of His Property (vv.
5-6).
5 And Abraham gave all that he bad unto haw. 6
But unto the sons of the coim&nes, that Abraham had,
Abraham gave gifts; and be seizt them away from Isaac
his son, while he yet lived, eastward, uizto the east country.
Isaac, the child of promise, the only son of his wife,
Sarah, received all his possessions. The son of the concu-
bines (Hagar and Keturah) were sent away with gifts,
into the east country, that is, Arabia in the widest sense
of the term, to the east and southeast of Palestine, to what
48 1

2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8 GENESIS
is known as the Syro-Arabian desert.’ The Keturean stock
divided into six branches, of which only one, Midian, ever
attained importance. In allocating -his possessions, it is to
be assumed that Abraham provided the sons of the concu-
bines with an abundance of flocks and herds sufficient to
provide for their future growth and sustenance.
(3) The Death and Burial of Abraham (vv. 7-1 1).
7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life
which he lived, a hundred threescore and fiteen years. 8
And Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old
age, an old man, and full of years, and was gathered to hs
people. 9 And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in
the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son
of Zohar the Hit€ite, which is before Matwe; 10 the field
which Abraham purchased of the cbildren of Heth: there
was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife. 11 And it came
to pass after the death of Abrabnm, that God blessed
Isaac his son: and Isaac dwelt by Beer-lahai-roi.
Abraham died at the good old age of 175, and was
gathered to his people (cf. 1~:15, Judg. 2:10). “This
expression which . . . is constantly distinguished from de-
parting this life and being buried, denotes the reunion in
Sheol with friends who have gone before, and therefore
presupposes faith in the personal continuance of a man
after death, as a presentiment which the promises of God
had exalted in the case of the patriarchs into a firm assur-
ance of faith (Heb. 11:13)” (BCOTP, 263). “An old
man, and full of years,” literally, “satisfied.” “He saw all
the desires of his heart fulfilled, and was satisfied with all
that he wished to see and do. He was granted the privilege
of seeing in his lifetime the reward stored up for him in the
world to come” (SC, 13 3). Note that the burial of the
patriarch in the cave of Machpelah was attended to by
Isaac and Ishmael, “since the latter, although excluded from
482

I
I
PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 f : 1 8
the blessings of the covenant, was acknowledged by God
as the son of Abraham by a distinct blessing (17:20), and
was thus elevated above the sons of Keturah” (ibid., 263).
It is significant that both sons shared in the service of
interment. “Funerals of parents are reconciliations of chil-
dren (3 5 :29) , and differences of contending religionists
are often softened at the side of a grave” (PCG, 314).
What a glorious setting of the sun on an ineffably glorious
pilgrimage of faith! After Abraham’s death, the divine
blessing was transferred to Isaac who returned to his abode
by Hagar’s well (cf. 17:20).
(4) The Line of Ishmael (vv. 12-18),
12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abra-
hain’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid,
bare unto Abraham: 13 and these are the names of the
sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their genera-
tioizs: the first-boriz of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, a d
Adbeel, and Mibsam, 15 and Misbina, and Dumah, and
Massa, 1 5 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, aizd Kedemah:
16 these are the sons of Isbwael, aizd these are their numes,
by their villages, and by their eizcainpmeizts; twelve princes
according to their nations. 17 And these are the years of
the life of Ishmael, a hundred aizd thirty aizd seven years:
and he gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered wnto
his people. 18 Aiid they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur
that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: he
abode over against all his brethren.
The usual procedure of the inspired historian is re-
peated here: the future of Abraham’s eldest son is traced
briefly before proceeding with the primiry theme-the
Messianic Line-as continued in the line of the Child of
Promise. The one name in this line which may be of
significance is Nebaioth, v. 13. “Nabajoth was the pro-
genitor of the Nabathaeans, who, about four centuries
483

23: 1-25: 18 GENESIS
before the Christian era, drove the Edomites out of Petra,
and constructed most of those rock tombs and temples
whose splendor astonish the modern traveler” (SIBG, 2 5 3 ) .
“The Nabataeans held possession of Arabia Petraea, with
Petra as their capital, and subsequently extended toward
the south and northeast, probably‘as far as Babylon; so
that the name was afterward transferred to all the tribes to
the east of the Jordan, and in the Nabataean writings
became a common name for Chaldeans (ancient Babylon-
ians), Syrians, Canaanites, and others” (BCOTP, 265).
(Cf. Gen. 28:9, 36:3; Isa. 60:7).
V. 16. Note “encampments”: that is, premises hedged
around, “then a village without a wall in contrast with a
walled town,” Lev. 2 5 : 3 1. “Twelve princes, according to
their nations.” (Note in connection also the twelve tribes
of Israel). The Ishmaelites (various Arabian tribes, the
Bedouins in particular) trace their beginnings to these
twelve princes. It is interesting to note that these peoples
are the foremost protagonists of Mohammedanism (even
as the twelve princes of Israel and their posterity are the
protagonists of Judiaism) .
Ishmael died at the age of 137, and his descendants
dwelt in Havilah, the area on the borders of Arabia Petraea
land Felix, as far as Shur, to the east of Egypt, “in the
direction of Assyria” (x. 29, 16:7), from which they ex-
tended their nomadic excursions into the northeast to the
land of the Euphrates: i.e., dwelling from the Euphrates
to the Red Sea (Josephus, Ant. I. 12, 4). Thus Ishmael
abode (settled) “over against all his brethren” (cf. 16:12,
also Judg. 7:12).
(For archaeological studies, look up material under
Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit, Amarna, Larsa, Alalakb, Boghazkoi,
Ur, Babylon, the Moabite Stone, the Code of Hammurabi,
etc. See The Biblical Vorld: A Dictionary of Archaeology,
edited by Pfeiffer, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan. )
484

1.
2,
3.
4.
1.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
17.
PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON
PART THIRTY-FIVE
Summarize the vqrious provisions which Abraham, in
his last years, made for his numerous progenies.
How explain the fact that Sarah is the only woman
whose death and burial are related in Scripture.
Where was Sarah buried? What other Bible person-
ages are buried there?
Summarize Abraham’s negotiation proceedings for
the acquirement of a burial place. Why did he seek
this in Canaan?
Who were the Hittites?
How much did Abraham pay for the field and cave
of Machpelah?
What does the name (Machjelak) mean? What does
the meaning suggest?
In what details did Abraham’s negotiations for Mach-
pelah follow Middle Assyrian and Hittite law?
Where is this cave supposed to be today?
Why did Abraham in his last years make provisions
for a wife for Isaac?
Whom did he commission to procure this prospective
bride?
Where did he send this person, and why did he send
him to that area?
What oath did Abraham exact from this person whom
he commissioned?
What was the bodily form of oath which the patriarch
required?
With what do Jewish commentators correlate this oath?
What is the critical (anthropological) lxplanation of
the import of this oath?
What evidence do we have that both Abraham and
his steward relied on Divine Providence to direct
them?
48 $

23.:1-25:18 GENESIS ‘(
18. What seems to have been the status of religious faith
and practice among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia?
19. Is it possible to verify the notibn that the kind of
oath taken by the steward had reference to generative
powers?
20. How does Leupold explain the far-reaching significance
of this oath?
21. What was the steward’s fear especially about the
possible failure of his mission?
22. What did Abraham promise in case those fears should
prove to have a real foundation?
23. For what divine token of identification of the prospective
bride did the steward pray?
24. Whom did the steward meet at the well? What was
her ancestry?
25. What three characteristics does Murphy hold to have
been chose which this prospective bride should manifest?
26. In what ways did the maiden at the well manifest
these characteristics?
27. For what did the steward praise God?
28. Who was Laban? What light did this incident throw
on Laban’s character?
29. How account for the fact that Laban conducted
these negotiations ?
30. Do we have intimations that Rebekah’s father might
have been deceased?
31. What were the details by which the negotiations were
concluded?
32. What decision did Rebekah herself make? Does not
her action in this respect prove that she,“had a mind
of her own”?
33. Explain what a “sistership document” was under
Hurrian law.
48 6
What are these intimations?

3 4,
3 14
3 6,
3 7,
38,
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 2 3 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
In what ways did these negotiations for Rebekah as
the prospective bride parallel the chief characteristics
of the “sistership document”?
What is the significance of Retekah’s apparently unexpected
meeting with Isaac on the return to Beersheba?
‘Where did the meeting take place? What was Isaac
doing at the time?
What is the chronological problem involved in chapter
21, VV. 1-4?
On what ground do we give Keturah the status of a
concubine?
What disposition with respect to his property did
Abraham make for the sons of his concubines?
What disposition of his property did Abraham make
for Isaac and why?
Where was Abraham buried? What significance is
there in the fact that both Ishmael and Isaac par-
ticipated in their father’s burial?
Which of the sons of Keturah figured later in Old
Testament history?
What territory did the Ishmaelites occupy? How did
their subsequent history fulfil the oracle of Gen.
16:12?
Who were the Nabataeans? What and where was
Petra?
Who are the Bedouins in relation to the descendants
of Ishmael?
What was an Ishmaelite “encampment”? How old
was Ishmael when he died?
What present-day religion glorifies, so to speak, the
twelve princes of Ishmael as the ancestors of the people
by whom it is espoused?
What religion looks back to the twelve princes of
Israel as its original source?
487

2 3.: 1-2 S 1 8
49. List the analogies that occur bet’preen the life of Isaac
and the life of Christ.
50. List the various steps in Abraham’s pilgrimage of faith.
51. What Scriptural evidence have we that Abraham be-
lieved in the future life?
52. What does the Bible tell us about Abraham’s last days?
$3. Does Abraham’s pilgrimage justify the notion that he
had succumbed to idolatry while living in Ur of the
* Chaldees? Explain your answer.
* . , k K * *
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
Artalogies: Isaac an& Christ 8 ~
Gen. 22:l-14, Heb. 11:8-19
Trace briefly the early life of Abraham and Sarah;
their journey into Canaan, brief sojourn in Egypt, the
separation from Lot. Abraham’s communion with God
relative to the Pate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the blessing
of Melehizedek, and the material prosperity of the patriarch.
In honor of his fidelity to the will of God, the name
of Abraham has gone down in all ages as “father of the
faithful” (Rom. 4: 16-22, Gal. 3 :6-7, Heb. 11 :8-10, James
2120-24).
In the midst of Abraham’s prosperity, however, there
was one heartache. Both Abraham and Sarah were grow-
ing old, and no child had blessed their household. There
was no outward indication of the fulfilment of God’s
promise, and Sarah had passed the age of child-bearing
(Gen. 17:l-4; 18:11-14). But
“God moves in mysterious ways
His wonders to perform”
and a child is promised to the faithful twain. In time,
Isaac is born, Heb. 11:11.
type of Christ.
In many respects Isaac was a
48 8

PROVISIONS FOR POSTERITY 23 : 1-2 5 : 1 8
1, Isaac was “a child of prom-
ise”, Gen. 17:l-8, 17:19, Heb.
11 :8-10, 17-19.
2. Isaac was the “only begotten
son” of Abraham and Sarah. Gen.
17:19, 22:16, Heb, 11:’17.
3. The offering of Isaac upon
1 Moriah, Gen. 22:l-14. A case
1 where the positive law of God
superseded moral law. Picture the
sentiments and emotions of the
patriarch in this trial of faith.
God “proved” Abraham, He named
the place Jehovah-jireh, “the Lord
will provide.”
4. Isaac carried wood for the
offering of himself, Gen. 22:6.
6. Isaac asked, “Where is the
lamb for a burnt-offering?” Gen.
22 : 7.
6. Isaac was three days in com-
ing to his figurative resurrection.
Gen. 22:4. Heb. 11:17-19.
7. Abraham sent his servant,
Eliezer, Gen. 16:2, 24:l-9, into a
far country to find a bride for
Isaac, from among his kindred.
8. The servant said: “Hinder
me not,” that he might hasten to
present Rebekali to Isaac, Gen,
24 : 66-66.
9. Rebeltah said, “I will go”,
Gen. 24:68.
489
1. Jesus was The Child of
promise. Gen. 3:16. 22:18. Isa,
?:14, 1l:l-2, 9:6-7,‘ Micali 58:2,
Matt. 1 :18-23. Luke 1 :26-33, John
1 : 16-18, 1 :29.
2. Jesus is the “only begotten
Son of God”. John 3:16, Psalm
2:7, Acts 13:33, John 1:14.
3. The offering of Jesus upon
Calvary, John 3:16. Heb. 9:27-28.
This was in obedience to the
eternal purpose of God. 1 Peter
1:18-20. Thus the Lord has pro-
vided sufficient atonement for sin,
and a way of reconciliation be-
tween man and his heavenly
Father, nom. 3:22-26, Col. 1:18-23.
4. Jesus bore His own Cross.
John 19: 16-18.
6. This suggests the prayer of
Jesus in Gethsemane. Matt. 26:39.
We would not consider this an
antitype however.
6. Jesus was three days in com-
ing to His literal resurrection.
Mark 16:l-8. I Cor. 16:l-4.
7. After the resurrection and
glorification of the Son, the
Father sent the Holy Spirit into
the world to find a Bride for
Jesus. John 7:39, 14:16-17, 16:7,
Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:8, 2:l-4.
Through the Holy Spirit, God is
today visiting the Gentiles to take
out of them a people “unto His
name,” Acts 11:18, 15:14.
8. The Holy Spirit is today
striving with the world and
pleading with cold-hearted pro-
fessors of religion that He may
hasten the presentation of the
Bride to the Bridegroom. Matt.
22:2-10, Acts 7551-53, Rom. 89.
9. So the Bride of the Redeemer
should be yearning to meet the
Bridegroom, Matt. 26:6. God has
prepared the feast. Blessed are
they that will be ready for the
coming of our Ilord, and will meet
Him in the air, and partake of
the marriage feast of the Lamb,

23 : 1-25 :18 GENESIS
1 Thess. 4:16-17, Rev. 19:1-9.
There is not a single exhortation
in the New Testament to prepgre
for death, but ever to meet the
Bridegroom at His second corn-
ing. John 14:l-3, 2 Peter 3:8-12.
We return to the scene on Mount Moriah, in con-
clusion, to recall that self-sacrifice is the supreme test of
faith, and that implicit obedience is the onLy testimony
of it. In either respect, Abraham was not found wanting.
But when we come to the climax of the story on Mount
Moriah, where a voice from Heaven says, “Abraham, lay
not thine hand upon the lad,” the type is lost. There was
no voice like that on Calvary, no heavenly edict to cry,
“Spare thy Son.” He gave Him freely for us all, “the
innocent for the guilty, the Just for the unjust.” All of
this was done that you might head and accept the precious
invita tion,
Tome to Calvary’s holy mountain,
Sinners, ruined by the fall;
Here a pure and healing fountain,
Flows to you, to me, to all,
In a full, perpetual tide,
Opened when our Saviour died”.
49 0

PART THIRTY-SIX
RECAPITULATION :
SURVEY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE
From A Class-Book of Old Testament History, pp. 73-76
by G. F. Maclear, D.D.
Published by Macmillan, London, 1 8 8 1 ,
now long out of print.
With the death of Joseph the Patriachal Age of Israel’s
history may be said to close. The Family had now thrown
out many branches and was now on the point of emerging
into the Nation. At this juncture, then, it may be well
to look back, and review some of the chief features of the
Patriarchal Life.
1. And the first of these that claims attention is its
Nomadic character. Unlike the founders of Egypt, of
Babylon, of Nineveh, the Patriarchs were not the builders
of cities and towns, but Pilgrims and sojourners, dwellers
in tents (Heb. 11 :9). But they were very different from
rude hordes, like the Amalekites and other “sons of the
desert,” abhorring any higher mode of life. Abraham was
no stranger to the highest form of civilization that his
age afforded. He was acquainted with Ur, with Nineveh,
with Damascus, with Egypt; he had left his home in one
of the chief cities of Mesopotamia, not from choice, but
in consequence of a direct personal call from God. More-
over, so far from regarding his present mode of life as an
ultimate end, he and Isaac and Jacob were ever looking
forward to a time when it would close, when their de-
scendants should be settled in the Land of Promise, and
become a great nation, when the portable tent should give
way to the city that had foundations (Heb. 11:10, 13-16;
comp. Gen, 24:7, 28:4, 49:4, j0:24). Hence, from time
to time, as opportunity offered, we see the wandering life
freely and willingly laid aside. Lot settled in Sodom (Gen.
13:lO-12) ; Abraham in Egypt went direct to Pharaoh’s
49 1

GENESIS
court (Gen. 12:14); at Hebron he settled and became a
“prince of God” in the midst of the Hittites (Gen. 23:6) ;
Isaac not only lived near the Philistines, but occupied a
house opposite the palace (Gen. 26: 8), and practised agri-
culture (Gen. 26: 12) ; and Joseph‘s dream of the sheaves
points out that this was also continued in the time of
Jacob (Gen. 37:7).
2. The Family was the center of the Patriarchal com-
monwealth. Its head was the source of authority and
jurisdiction; he possessed the power of life and death (Gen.
38:24) ; he united in himself the functions of chief and
priest; he offered the burnt-offering; he had his armed
retainers (Gen. 14:14, 48:22, 34:25, 33:l) ; his intercourse
with his wives (for polygamy was not forbidden) was
free and unrestrained; the wife’s consent was asked before
wedlock (Gen. 24:57, 58) ; love hallowed the relations of
Abraham with Sarah, of Isaac with Rebekah, of Jacob
with Leah and Rachel; woman, indeed, did not occupy the
position since conceded to her, but her position was far
from degraded, and the sanctity of the marriage-bond was
defended by severe laws, which made death the punishment
for adultery (Gen. 3 8:24). Slavery, it is true, existed,
but in the tents of Abraham the slave was ever treated
with consideration, and not excluded from, but made a
partaker of religious privileges (Gen. 17: 13). The fidelity
and attachmen of Eliezer the steward of Abraham’s house,
the mourning for Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (Gen. 3 5 :8) ,
are pleasing proofs of the peace that reigned in the Patri-
archal household.
3. Civilization. The life of the Patriarchs was chiefly
that of the shepherd, and their wealth consisted in their
flocks and their herds. But besides practising agriculture
they were not unacquainted with money and the precious
metals. Abraham paid for the field of Machpelah with
coin (Gen. 23:9-20), and the sons of Jacob took money
with them into Egypt (Gen. 42:25, 35); while the gold
49 2

THE PATRIARCHAL AGE
ring and armlets presented to Rebekah by Eliezer (Gen.
24:22), the bracelet and signet ring of Judah (Gen.
38:18), the ear-rings of Rachel (Gen. 35:4), the many-
coloured coat of Joseph, indicate an acquaintance with the
luxuries of life.
4, Religion. While other nations were rapidly learning
to deify the powers of nature, the Patriarchs believed not
only in a God above and beyond nature, but in a God
Personal, Omnipotent, and Holy. The God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob was. no mere abstraction, no mere law.
He could and did reveal Himself by angelic appearances,
by visions, by dreams; He could console, strengthen, en-
courage; He could punish, rebuke, and on repentance for-
give. Abraham, the Fried of God (Jas. 2:23), intercedes
with Him in behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:23-
33) ; Isaac is warned by Him against going down into
Egypt (Gen. 26:2); Jacob is consoled by Him at Bethel
when setting out into the land of exile (Gen. 28:13-15),
and wrestles with Him by the fords of Jabbok till the
break of day (Gen. 32:24) ; Joseph believes in His invisible
but ever-present help in prison and in a strange land, and
ascribes to Him all his wisdom in the interpretation .of
dreams (Gem 41:16). The Divine Promise of a great
future Abraham believed under circumstances of greatest
trial, and his faith was coztnted to hiw for righteousness
(Rom. 4:3). Moreover, the God of the Patriarchs was not
a mere “national or household God.” His sphere of opera-
tion was not restricted to the Patriarchs and their families;
He is the God of all the earth (Gen. 24:3), the God of
Righteousness and Holiness. He punishes the people of
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24-25) ; He plagues Phar-
aoh’s house (Gen. 12:17) ; He is the God of the priest-king
Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18), and of the Philistine Abiinelech
(Gen. 20:3) ; He protects not only Isaac the “child of
promise,” but the outcast Ishmael the “child of the bond-
49 3

GENESIS
woman” (Gen. 21:13); He is with Joseph in prison, but
He sends dreams to Pharaoh, and through Joseph He saves
Egypt from famine (Gen. 50:20).
5. The Religious Worship of the Patriarchs was in
keeping with the simplicity of their creed. The head of
the family was also the priest of the family. Whenever
Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, reached any new spot in their
pilgrimage, they invariably erected an altar, generally of
stone and on a high situation (Gen. 22:9, 26:25, 35:7);
there they called on the name of Jehovah, there they
presented their burnt sacrifice, there they offered up their
prayers. Their history also proves the existence of offering
covenant-sacrifices, and celebrating covenant-feasts (Gen.
15:9-18) ; the making and paying of vows (Gen. 28:23) ;
the erection of memorial pillars, and the consecration of
them by pouring upon them oil and wine (Gen. 28:18);
the rite of circumcision (Gen. 17:lO-14) ; and the paying
of tithes (Gen. 14:20).
6, The Character of the Patriarchs is never repre-
sented as perfect; their faults are freely exposed; theirs is
no ideal history. If we compare the four most eminent
amongst them, we seem to trace in (i) Abrabam, “the
faith that cm remove mountain^'^ in its power and in its
fulness, revealing itself in unfaltering trust and unques-
tioning obedience under the most trying circumstances
conceivable; in (ii) Isaac, the faith that can possess itself
in patience, and discharge the ordinary duties of life in
quietness and waiting; in (iii) Jacob, the violent contest
of faith with the flesh, the higher with the lower nature,
till by hard discipline the latter is purified, and the “Sup-
planter” becomes the “Prince,” the “Prevailer with God”;
in (iv) Joseph, the fidelity and perseverance of faith, re-
vealed not only in the patient endurance of the most
grievous trials, but in energetic action, and at length
crowned with victory. “He unites in himself the noble
494

THE PATRIARCHAL AGE
trust and resolution of Abraham, with the quiet persever-
ance of Isaac, and the careful prudence of Jacob.” He is
moreover an eminent historic type of Christ, in (I) his
persecution and sale by his brethren, (2) his resisting
temptation, (3) his humiliation and exaltation, and (4)
his dispensing to a famine-stricken people the bread of life,
and (5) in the fulness of his forgiving love.
49 s

ADDENDA
LANGE:
ON THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH
(CDHCG, 389-390, verbatim)
Between Abram’s connection with Hagar and the next
manifestation of Jehovah there are full thirteen years.
But then his faith is strengthened again, and Jehovah
appears to him (17:l). The most prominent and impor-
tant theophany in the life of Abram is the appearance of
the three men (ch. 17). But this appearance wears its
prevailing angelic form, because it is a collective appear-
ance for Abram and Lot, and at the same time refers to
the judgement upon Sodom. Hence the two angels are
related to their central point as the sun-images to the
sun itself, and this central point for Abram is Jehovah
himself in his manifestation, but not a commissioned Angel
of the Lord. Thus also this Angel visits Sarah (21:l;
compare 18:lO). But the Angel appears in the history
of Hagar a second time (21:17), and this time as the
Angel of God (Maleach Elohim), not as the Maleach Je-
hovah, for the question is not now about a return to
Abram’s house, but about the independent settlement with
Ishmael in the wilderness, The person who tempts Abram
(22:l) is Elohim-God as he manifests himself to the
nations and their general ideas or notions, and the revela-
tion is effected purely through the word. Now, also, in
the most critical moment for Abram, the Angel of the Lord
comes forward, calling down to him from heaven since
there was need of a prompt message of relief. In the rest
of the narrative this Angel of the Lord identifies himself
throughout with Jehovah (vers. 12, 16). To Isaac also
Jehovah appears (26:2), and the second time in the night
(ver. 24). He appears to Jacob in the night in a dream
(28: 12, 13). Thus also he appears to him as the Angel
of God in a dream (31:11), but throughout identified
49 6

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH
with Jehovah (ver. 13). Jehovah commands him to return
home through the word (31:3), Laban receives the word
of God in a dream (3 1 :24). The greatest event of revela-
tion in the life of Jacob is the grand theophany, in the
night, through the vision, but the man who wrestles with
him calls himself God and man (men) at the same time.
According to the theory of a created angel, Jacob is not
a wrestler with God (Israel), but merely a wrestler with
the Angel. It is a more purely external circumstance ,
which God uses to warn Jacob through the word to re-
move from Shechem (35:I). In the second' peculiar
manifestation of God to Jacob after his return from
Mesopotamia (35:9), we have a clear and distinct reflec-
tion of the first (32:24). In the night-visions of Joseph,
which already appear in the life of Isaac, and occur more
frequently with Jacob, the form of revelation during the
patriarchal period comes less distinctly into view. But
then it enters again, and with new energy, in the life of
Moses. The Angel of Jehovah (Ex. 3:2) is connected
with the earlier revelation, and here also is identified with
Jehovah and Elohim (ver. 4). But he assumes a more
definite form and title, as the Angel of his face, since
with the Mosaic system the rejection of any deifying of
the creature comes into greater prominence, and since it is
impossible that the face of God should be esteemed a
creature,
The reasons which are urged for the old ecclesiastical
view of the Angel of the Lord, are recapitulated by Kurtz
in the following order: 1. The Maleach Jehovah identifies
himself with Jehovah. 2. Those to whom he appears recog-
nize, name, and worship him as the true God. 3. He re-
ceives sacrifice and worship without any protest. 4. The
biblical writers constantly speak of him as Jehovah. We
add the reasons. 1. The theory of our opponents opens a
wide door in the Old Testament for the deifying of the
creature, which the Old Testament everywhere condemned;
497

GENESIS
and the Romish worship of angels finds in it a complete
justification. 2. The Socinians also gain an important argu-
ment for their rejection of the Trinity, if, instead of self-
revelation of God, and of the self -distinction included in
it in the Old Testament, there is merely a pure revelation
through angels. As the fully developed doctrine of the
Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament, so no one
can remove from the Old Testament the beginnings of
that doctrine, the self -distinction of God, without re-
moving the very substructure on which the New Testa-
ment doctrine of the Trinity rests, and without obscuring
the Old Testament theology in its very centre and glory.
3. It would break the band of the organic unity between
the Old and New Testaments if it could be proved that
the central point in the Old Testament revelation is a
creature-angel, and that the New Testament revelation
passes at one bound from this form to that of the God-
man. The theory of the creature-angel in its continuation
through a colossal adoration of angels, points downwards
to the Rabbinic and Mohammedan doctrine of angels which
has established itself in opposition to the New Testament
Christology, and is bound together with that exaggerated
doctrine of angels in more recent times, which ever cor-
responds with a veiled and obscure Christology. On the
other hand, it removes from the New Testament Chris-
tology its Old Testament foundation and preparation
which consists in this, that the interchange bewteen God
and men is in full operation, and must therefore prefigure
itself in the images of the future God-man. 4. The doc-
trine of angels itself loses its very heart, its justification
and interpretation, if we take away from it the symbolic
angel-form, which rules it, as its royal centre, i.e. that
angelic form which, as a real manifestation of God, as a
typical manifestation of Christ, as a manifestation of angels,
has the nature and force of a symbol, But with the
49 8

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH
obliteration of the symbolic element, all the remaining
symbolic and angelic images, the cherubim and seraphim,
will disappear, and with the key of biblical psychology in
its representation of the development of the life of the
soul, to an organ of revelation, we shall lose the key to
the exposition of the Old Testament itself. li. Augustin
was consistent when, with his interpretation of the Angel
of Jehovah as a creature-angel, he decidedly rejects the
interpretation which regards the sons of God (ch. 6) as
angel-beings; for the asumption of angels who, as such,
venture to identify themselves with Jehovah, and notwithstanding
they are in peril, abandon themselves to
lustful pleasures and a magical transformation of their
nature, combines two groundless and intolerable phantoms.
We hold, therefore, that Old Testament theology, in its
very heart and centre, is in serious danger from these two
great prejudices, as the New Testament from the two great
prejudices of a mere mechanical structure of the Gospels,
and of the unapostolic and yet more than apostolic brothers
of the Lord. (See the defence of the old ecclesiastical
view in the Commentary by Keil, also with a reference to
Kahnis, de Angelo Doinini diatribe, 18 5 8. The assertion
of the opposite view held by Delitzsch in his Commentary,
meets here its refutation).
6. The aspect of all theophanies as visions.
It is a
general supposition, that divine revelation is partly through
visions, or through inward miraculous sights and sounds.
We must, however, bring out distinctly the fundamental
position, that every theophany is at the same time vision,
and every vision a theophany; but that in the one case the
objective theophany and in the other the subjective vision,
is the prevailing feature. The subjective vision appears
in the most definite form in dream-visions, of which
Adam’s sleep, and Abram’s night-horror (chs. 2 and lJ.),
are the first striking portents. It develops itself with great
499

GENESIS
power in the lives of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, and is of
still greater importance in the lives of Samuel and Solomon,
as also in the night-visions of Zechariah. We find them
in the New Testament in the life of Joseph of Nazareth
and in the history of Paul. It needs no proof to show
that the manifestations of God or angels in dreams, are
not outward manifestations to the natural senses. In the
elements of the subjective dream-vision, veils itself, how-
ever, the existing divine manifestation. But what ’ the
dream introduces in the night-life, the seeing in images-
that the ecstasy does in the day or ordinary waking life
(see Lange: “Apostolic Age”). The ecstasy, as the remov-
ing of the mind into the condition of unconsciousness, or
of a different consciousness, is the potential basis of the
vision, the vision is the activity or effect of the ecstasy.
But since the visions have historical permanence and re-
sults, it is evident that they are the intuitions of actual
objective manifestations of God. Mere hallucinations of
the mind lead into the house of error, spiritual visions
build the historical house of God. But in this aspect we
may distinguish peculiar dream-visions, night-visions of a
higher form and power, momentary day-visions, apocalyp-
tic groups or circles of visions, linked together in prophetic
contemplation, and that habitual clear-sightedness as to
visions which is the condition of inspiration. But that
theophanies which are ever at the same time Angelophanies
and Christophanies, and indeed as theophanies of the voice
of God, or of the voice from heaven, of the simple appear-
ance of angels, of their more enlarged and complete mani-
festations of the developed heavenly scene-that these are
always conditioned through a disposition of fitness for
visions, is clear from numerous passages in the Old and
New Testaments (2 Ki. 6:17, Dan. 10:7; John 12:28-29,
20:10-12; Acts 9:8, 12:7-12, 22:9-14).
># :# x. :E :I.
I00

THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE
THE ABRAI-IAMIC PROMISE
(by H. Christopher) The Re~zedial System, pp. 146-1 YO)
The promise that God would bless the whole world
through him [Abraham] had reference to Christ, the son
of Abraham, through whom God would fulfill his promise
of blessing the whole world through the offspring of
Abraham. Whilst it was the first and chief promise made
to Abraham) it was the last in fulfillment. Nearly two
thousand years intervened. It was ratified and covenanted
by the blood of Christ, and looked to the possession of the
heavenly Canaan) and to a circumcision that cut off the
heart from all that is worldly and sensual, and to a seal
that became the pledge of the purchased possession, and
its settlement in the heavenly Canaan) by the resurrection
from the dead, when the spiritual people of God cross the
Jordan of death, and take possession of the land of promise,
for which even Abraham looked, when he sought “a city
whose maker and builder is God.”
This promise and its blessings have no connection
with the others made to Abraham. They differ as widely
as flesh and spirit, and as earth and heaven. They connect
or coalesce no where. The first were but preparatory and
necessary to the last. When the last appeared) the first
had served their chief, if not all their, purpose. The first
had chief reference to man’s body, while the last has chief
reference to man’s spirit. And as the spirit of man is
Superimposed) as it were, upon the body, and is capable of
a separate and independent existence, so was the last
promise superimposed upon the first, and is capable of
existing) and does exist, independently of it. Hence, the
promises and the covenants by which thef were ratified,
connect with each other only as the flesh connects with
the spirit. Between them lies an impassable gulf. There
is no possible passage from the first to the last. The Jew
has no rights and privileges under Christ by virtue of his
so1

GENESIS
being the son of Abraham according to the flesh; for the
promise was; “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” and he
was the child of promise and of faith. The Christian is
the child of promise and of faith, and hence is reckoned
through Isaac as a special creation of God, and is, there-
fore, himself a new creation. The last creation supersedes
all former ones, and by this supersession abrogates them.
The adoption of the children of Abraham as the special
and peculiar people of God, set aside the adoption by crea-
tion, and during the time of their adoption, the natural
adoption was set aside, and the rest of mankind ignored,
and treated as an uncovenanted people. So when the
Christian adoption came in, the Jewish was set aside, and
all the rest of mankind, not embraced in the new adoption,
were ignored and treated as uncovenanted. Hence, under
Christianity there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither circum-
cision nor uncircumcision; but all the families, nations,
and races of mankind are one in Christ, in perfect ful-
fillment of the promise: rrIyt thee shall all the families of
the earth be blessed.”
All this is necessarily true.
The Remedial System
is developed by differentiations which mark the boundaries
of the development. The patriarch had no privileges,
special and peculiar, after the calling of Abraham. By
that call God isolated a part from the whole, and made
this part his special care. By the new creation through
Christ another isolation was made, which placed Jew and
Greek on the same plane before God, and abrogated all
special and peculiar rights or privileges claimed by the
Jews.
This is necessarily true from another consideration.
The claim of the Jew rested on an explicit covenant. That
covenant recognized him as the chosen of God, through a
means wholly different from that by which he had recognized
the patriarch, and dQes now recognize the Christian.
502

THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE
This consideration or means was his birth. He was the
son of Abraham according to the flesh, and entitled,
consequently, only to the rights and privileges guaranteed
by the covenant ordained to grant and secure these. He
could claim only under the stipulated grants of his covenant.
Under other and different covenants, and made
with other people, he could, of course, have no claim or
right whatever. His circumcision effected all it was designed
to effect, and meant more than the Jew was willing
to accept. It cut him off from all the rest of the world,
and also from all other covenants of God, but according
to the flesh. His circumcision bound him down to the
provisions and obligations of that covenant, and confined
him within its prescribed limits. What claim, therefore
can a Jew have to the grants and blessings of a covenant
that has no special reference to him whatever, and that
was not made with him as a Jew? The European had as
well claim equal rights with the American under the
constitution of the United States, The Jew was the chosen
of God only according to the flesh, and entitled only to
blessings of his covenant. He is not the chosen of God
according to the spirit, or the seed of Isaac according to
the promise, and hence he can have no right with those
who are.
There are four things necessary to make a nation the
peculiar and chosen people of God, and all these obtained
in the case of the descendants of Abraham according to
the flesh. These things are, 1. A creation.
This we have
in the birth of Isaac. His conception was a miracle, and
hence a creation. 2. A seal. This we have in circumcision.
3. A purchase. This we have in the deliverance of this
people from Egypt. And 4.. A covenant. And this we
have in the covenant made before Mt. Sinai. All these
are peculiar and consistent, and perfectly harmonious with
all that God has promised, or has done for, the Jews, They
j03

GENESIS
were all equally necessary, and they follow each other as
necessary results one of the other. The seal came to ratify
the creation, the purchase, in demonstration of the fulfill-
ment of the promise, and the covenant, in order that the
people might also pledge themselves by covenant. By this
the people became cemented and organized into a nation.
As such they needed laws and institutions for their govern-
ment and welfare as a people; and as the people of God,
religious institutions for the various purposes which God
had in view with that people.
It will be observed that this covenant made with
Abraham’s descendants arose under that which covenanted
them as the peculiar people of God, and was, consequently,
entirely Jewish. The covenant of Mt. Sinai was made with
that people, and the institutions subsequently given, were
given to that people, and to no other. The Jewish insti-
tution, in all its entirety, was as verily circumcised as were
the people for whose benefit it was ordained. It was as
completely isolated from all other religions and peoples,
as were that people. Hence, it had no connection with
any other, nor relation, except that of opposition.
The covenant stipulated and embraced no more than
did the promise under which it was made. It was a ratifi-
cation, or acceptance on their part, of the stipulations of
the promise. It was the covenant by which God renewed
his promise to be their God, and by it the people accepted
the offer, and covenanted to be the people of God. This
covenant bound both parties to their pledge-God to be
their God, and them to be his obedient people. It did not,
and could not stipulate and grant more than did the
promise; hence, all these were temporal in their nature.
This completed all that God had to provide for that people.
Henceforth there was naught for either party to do, but
to carry out the provisions of the covenant which formu-
lated the promise.
F 04

THE ABRAHAMIC PROMISE
But this covenant was not only temporary as re-
spects the rights, privileges, and blessings which it secured
to that people; but it was also temporary in its duration.
The people broke that covenant: and “a covenant broken
on one side, is broken on both.” It was faulty in that it
only contemplated and provided for man’s temporal wants.
Indeed, this was the fault of the whole Jewish fabric,
from the inception to the close. This was foreseen; and
not only foreseen, but the whole structure was but a means
to an end; a measure to give time for the preparation and
institution of a better. The promise of God under which
the whole Jewish structure arose, was not the first and
chief promise that God made to Abraham, nor his chief
purpose in calling him. This chief and greatest promise
was that through him he would bless the whole human
family. This promise the apostle interprets as having
reference to Christ, and consequently, it was sooner or
later, to take precedence of all others. It could not be
annulled by any subsequent promise, unless that promise
annulled, at the same time, all former ones. But this the
subsequent promises did not do, as is affirmed by the people.
The promise which had reference to Christ, preceded
the ratification of that concerning the land several years,
and antedated the covenant of circumcision twenty-four
years. The covenant at Mt. Sinai followed the latter four
hundred and six thereafter. So that nothing which trans-
pired under the later promises could annul the first.
The first and chief promise which contemplated spirit-
ual blessings and a spiritual offspring through Isaac, was
not ratifited, fulfilled, or covenanted, €or nearly two
thousand years. All that has grown out of this promise
has no connection with what arose under the others. It
differs from them in every respect. It differed from
them in the beginning. It came into the world through
a different line. There were two lines of descendants in
SOS

GENESIS
Isaac, as two promises were fulfilled in his descendants.
The one line was “the seed of Abraham according to the
flesh,” and the other “the seed according to the spirit,”
the latter of which is reckoned the true line under the
covenant of the first promise. This excludes the children
according to the flesh from all rights and privileges per-
taining to the children according to the spirit. As respects,
therefore, their nature, rights, and privileges, the Jewish
and Christian institutions differ radically and entirely;
to that degree as to exclude the one wholly from the other.
The creation, the circumcision or seal, the purchase, and
the covenant, that made the descendants of Abraham
according to the flesh the people of God, have no place nor
value under the Christian institution. The latter has its
own creation, seal, purchase, and covenant, all of which
are spiritual and eternal, and these give the Christian no
rights or privileges under the former. Hence, as respects
institutions $if fering so completely and widely, there can
be no community of rights and privileges; nor can the one
flow out of the other so as to establish any genetic con-
nection between them.
As the spiritual and the eternal necessarily supersede
the fleshly and temporal, so does the Jewish institution, in
whole and in part, give way to the Christian. Under the
latter arises a people of God as distinct from the former
as spirit is from flesh. The Christian is a new creation,
and all that pertains to his creation is new. Before it the
Jew and Gentile stand on the same ground. Both must
become the subjects of this new creation before they can
be regarded as belonging to the people of God. All the
claim which the Jew once preferred, goes for naught under
the operation of the new creation. A new birth is just
as essential for the Jew as for the Gentile. Hence, the
Jew’s creation, seal, purchase, and covenant are all naught
when he stands before the Christian’s. His birth of the
506

THE EXCELLENCE OF FAITH
flesh avails nothing, and neither does his circumcision,
Nothing is now acceptable to God but the new creation
in Christ.
These things being true, all that is Jewish has passed
away. The Jews are no longer the people of God. Their
whole religious service has perished; and what purpose
God has now with that people remains to be seen. That
he has no further purpose with them in regard to the
fulfillment of his promise of blessing the world through
them by Christ, is evident from the fact that Christianity
has superseded Judaism, and that the whole religious service
of that people perished with the total destruction of their
temple. Christ is the end of the law, and of all that per-
tained to it. It was but a pedagogue to lead the Jews to
Christ; so that when he came all that was Jewish was set
aside, and the pedagogue was dismissed. All now become
“the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” in whom
“there is neither Jew nor Greek; neither bond nor free;
neither male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus.”
And all who are Christ’s by virtue of the new creation,
the spiritual seal, the eternal purchase, and the everlasting
covenant, are ‘‘the seed of Abraham, and heirs according
to the promise”: “In thee shall all the families of the
earth be blessed.”
(N. B. After hunting several years for a copy of
Christopher’s book, I found it in the Dallas Christian
College Library-C. C.)
,P K ab :I. K
THE EXCELLENCE OF FAITH
(Read Rom. J:l-ll).
In the study of First Principles the term which first
engages our attention is faith. We shall find that it
occupies a prominent place in connection not only with
conversion, but also with every phase of Christian activity
and growth.
J 07

GENESIS
Faith is one of the most far-reaching words in the
vocabulary of inspiration. Without faith none of the
blessings of the spiritual realm would be available to man.
Contrariwise, on the ground of faith, such blessings as
eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man
conceived (1 Cor. 2:9), are within his power to appropriate
and enjoy.
Faith is an oft-recurring word in the New Testament.
Jesus had much to say about it, and the word is used repeatedly
in the Epistles. Paul states expressly that we are
justified by faith (Rom. 5:).
The excellence of faith is indicated in scripture by
the following representations:
1. Faith is superior to things and circumstances of
this material world.
When given full sway in the human heart it rises
above the circumstances of life and controls them. The
power of faith is described in such scriptures as Matt.
17:20, Mark 9:23 and 11:23, Luke 17:6. Christians of
this materialistic age, in bondage as they are to the “tyranny
of things,” are inclined to look on these sayings of the
Master with more or less skepticism. The tragedy is that
have never really learned to walk by faith. We canhot
testify that these sayings are true for the simple reason
that we have never learned to stand on ‘God’s prbmises.
True, we claim to do so, and we sing “Sta
Promises,” but always with mental reserkttio
through the exercise of implicit faith that we can. throw
off the fetters ,of anxiety and fear which enslave us to
this present evil world. We are willing to obey the Lord
in confession and baptism, but we certainly fall far short
of His teaching in regard
. .
to such everyday matters as
fear, worry, forgiveness, humility, and the like. (See
Matt 5:3-12; 21-26, 38-42; 6:25-33; 7:1-5, 7-12, etc.
Cf. 1 John 4:18) He might well say to us as to His
disciples of -old, “0 ye of little faith!”
508

THE EXCELLENCE OF FAITH
2. Faith is the grouiid of our justificatiom.
“Being therefore justified by faithyy-not by faith
alone, or mere intellectual assent (the theologians have added
the word uloiie)--“we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ.” Not by faith atlone, because “faith
apart from works” (ix., works of faith) is dead (Jas.
2:26). The faith that is “unto the saving of the soul”
(Heb, 10:39) expresses itself in works of obedience, sacrifice
and service (Rom. l2:1-2). To walk by faith is to
“live by the Spirit” (Gal. 5 :22-25), God so loved us
that He gave His only begotten Son as a propitiation for
our sins (John 3:16) , but we must appropriate this matchless
Gift by faith. By true faith in Him we “have access
into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5:2). “For by
grace ye have been saved through faith, and that” (i.e.,
that salvafion) “not of yourselves, it is the gift of God”
(Eph. 2:8).
3. Faith is the motivating priwciple of all Christian
worship a d
service.
True worship is (1) communion of the human spirit
with the Divine Spirit, (2) on the terms of the truth>&
revealed in scripture (John 4:24). This can be realized
only through faith. Repentance is faith ,choosing; ’ the
confession is faith speaking; baptism is faith obeying; the
Lord’s Supper is faith wmembering; liberality is faith
acknowledging God’s ownership; prayer is faith commun-
‘ i, ‘
ing; meditaiion‘ is faith pondering; I and the whole Chris,,
tib life is faith serving. Therefoie we are justified by
faith. From the day of conversion to that of the putting
on of immortality, the actuating principle in ihe life of
every true Christian is faith.
4. Implicit faith, aloiig with obedieiicej is a necessary
coizdition to the aiiswer of prayy (John .14: 12-1 S, 15 : 5 -
10, etc.).
(1) Acts 12:l-17.
We read here that many.of the
early disciples were gathered together in the house of Mary,’
S 09

GENESIS
the mother of John Mark, praying for Peter’s deliverance
from prison. Yet they were “amazed” when their prayer
was answered and Peter stood in their midst. Most of our
praying is of this kind; it has little conviction back of it.
(Matt. 21 :22).
(2) The prayer of faith, i.e., the petition offered in
harmony with the teaching of God’s word, will not go
unanswered.
“Unanswered yet? The prayer your lips have pleaded
In agony of heart these many years?
Does faith begin to fail? is hope departing?
And thing you all in vain those falling tears?
Say not the Father hath not heard your prayer,
You shall have your desire, sometime, somewhere.
“Unanswered yet? Tho’ when you first presented
This one petition at the Father’s throne,
It seemed you could not wait the time of asking
So urgent was your heart to make it known.
Tho’ years have passed since then, do not despair;
The Lord will answer you, sometime, somewhere.
‘‘Unanswered ‘yet? Nay, do not say ‘ungranted’;
Perhaps your part is not yet wholly done;
The work began when first your prayer was uttered,
And God will finish what He has begun;
If you will keep the incense burning there,
His glory you shall see, sometime, somewhere.
. .
“Unanswered yet? Faith cannot be unanswered;
Her feet are firmly planted on the Rock;
Amid the wildest storms she stands undaunted,
Nor quails before the loudest thunder-shock.
She knows Omnipotence has heard her prayer,
And cries, ‘It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!’
And cries, ‘It shall be done, sometime, somewhere!”’
5 10

THE NATURE OF FAITH
J, The blessings and rewards of the gospel are all received
and realized through faith.
Among these are: (1) salvation from the guilt of sin
(Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 10:43, 16:31, 26:18) ; (2) spiritual
life (John 20:31, 6:40, John 3:16, 36; 1 John 5:12);
(3) spiritual light (John 1:9, 8:12, 12:36); (4) heavenly

GENESIS
is “unto the saving of the soul.” The subject-matter
which follows, in ch. 11, is an analysis of that kind of
faith, what it is, whence it is obtained, and how it operates
unto salvation, as exemplified in the lives of many illus-
trious believers of olden times. The writer proves to be
an excellent sermonizer, as we might expect in view of
his having been inspired by the Spirit of God. He states
his text in v. 1, and then proceeds to develop it with
appropriate illustrations drawn from Old Testament ’ his-
tory. His concluding exhortation follows, in ch. 12, vs.
1-2. We shall attempt here to evaluate the teaching of
this great chapter on the nature (i.e., the original and
essential characteristics) of faith,
Let me repeat that the kind of faith under considera-
tion here is the faith that works “unto the saving of the
By some this has been called “saving faith..” Not
that faith of itself will save any one, because it will not;
but that the right kind of faith will motivate the believer
to such intelligent and” sincere cooperation with God, on
God’s terms and according to His plan, that He may
save the one who so believes. It is who
saves, but ,always through Jesus Christ (John
sidering the $excellence of
portant that we know what fai
T am profoundly thankful that the H
regarding this eise
finite minds to formulate ’a definition.
We are not’,compelled to go either to philosophy or to
theology fdr‘ a definiti
he essential characteristics of faith?
This huestion is fully answered in the words of our text,
as follows:
,
Faith is “assurance . . .” “Assurance” is defined
as Stconfidence inspired or expressed,” “that which pro-
$12

I .
THE NATURE OF FAITH
duces certainty.” It connotes positiv,eness, certainty, even
boldn,ess.
2. Faith is “asswame of things hoped for.’’ That
is, faith is the foundation of hope,
(1) Authorized Version: “the substance of things
hoped for.” The word substance means in our language
“the stuff, material, or matter of which anything is composed.”
It is used here, however, in its derivative sense.
It is derived from the Latin prefix, sub (under) and the
Latin participle stavs (standing), Substance, then is that
which stands under. Faith is that which stands under hope.
Cf. Living Oracles: “faith is the confidence of things hoped
for.” Moffatt: “faith means we are confident of what
we hope for.” Weymouth: “faith is a well-grounded assurance
of that for which we hope.” Goodspeed: “faith means
the assurance of what we hope for.”
(2) Faith is the foundation of hope. This is true in
every department of human activity. It is true in the
business world. I visited a friend on one occasion to
solicit a contribution from him for a worthy cause. Having
heard my case, his reply was: “I believe in your proposition,
and I am sorry that I am not in a position to help
just at this time. But I will do something later. I have
invested a considerable sum of money in an oil well in
Texas, and I am expecting returns from this investment
within a few months. If you will come back about a
year from this date, I will give you a substantial donation.”
I thanked him, and departed. About a year later I called
at his office a second time, and as soon as I entered he
looked at me and exclaimed: “I know what you have come
for, but I can’t do anything for you.” “What is the
trouble?” I asked, “didn’t the oil well turn out satisfactorily?”
And in extreme disgust he said: “I wish I
had the money back that I sank in that hole in the ground.”
The first time I called he was extremely hopeful, because
513
,

GENESIS
he believed in the enterprise in which he had invested; the
second time I found him with hopes blasted, because he
had lost all faith in it. Where there is no faith, there is
no hope.
(3) This is also true in the social realm. In the
course of time a young couple will fall in love, marry, and
establish a home. The success of their undertaking will
depend largely on their faith in each other. On this funda-
tion of faith they will erect a structure of dreams and
plans and hopes. But let the confidence of one in the
other be destroyed and this structure will fall to the
ground. Both marriage and home are erected on a founda-
tion of faith.
(4) So, in the realm of spirit, as elsewhere, hope rests
upon faith. Every act of worship and service we perform
is motivated by faith. Faith underlies the pyramid of
Christian virtues (2 Pet 1:5-7). And all our aspirations
and hopes respecting “the home over there,’’ “the in-
heritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not
away” (1 Pet. 1:4) rest on faith. In everything faith is
the foundation of hope.
(J) Illustratiws from the chapter (Heb. 11). (a)
Abel’s hope that his offering would be acceptable to God
rested on faith, v. 4. (1 John 3:12) (b) Enoch’s walk
with God was a walk of faith, v. 5. (c) Faith was the
foundation of Noah’s hope of deliverance from impending
judgment, v. 7. (d) Abraham’s hope of attaining the far
country which he was to receive for an inheritance was
founded on faith, v. 8. Also, his hope of receiving Isaac
back from the dead was inspired by faith, “from whence
he did also in a figure receive him back,” vs. 17-19. (e)
Sarah’s expectation of a son, the child of promise, rested
on faith, v. 11. (f) Joseph’s hope that the children of
Israel would ultimately take possession of the land of
promise rested upon his faith, v. 22. (9) The aspirations,
hopes and plans of Moses for his people, and his matchless
514

THE NATURE OF FAITH
efforts in their behalf, were all inspired by his faith, vs,
24-29, In every example cited, faith is presented as the
foundation of hope.
3. Faith is a “coiivictioi~~ . , .’) A ccconvictionyy is defined
as a “strong belief ,” “something firmly believed.”
The faith which operates unto the saving of the soul is
something more than a passive intellectual assent, It is a
conviction. It must be a conviction, one that takes hold
of the soul and determines the course of one’s life. In
the light of this definition, it is obvious that faith is precisely
the thing that is lacking in the modern church,
4. Faith is “a conviction of things not seen,” ie., a
conviction with respect to things not seen.
(1) Authorized Version: “the evidence of things not
seen.” Moffatt: “Faith means . . . we are convicted of
what we do not see.” Weyinouth: “a conviction of the
reality of things which we do not see.” Goodspeed: “our
conviction about things we cannot see.”
(2) Note that faith is a conviction with respect to
things not seen. I have never seen Paris, but I have a
conviction that there is a city by that name and that it is
the capital of France. My conviction is the result of
satisfactory evidence. Things which are seen are matters
of observation and knowledge, but things that are not
seen belong to the realm of faith. God who is a Spirit
(John 4:24) cannot be seen, and is therefore to be apprehended
only by faith. Angels, spirit, resurrection, immortality,
heaven, etc., all these realities of the unseen
world are matters of faith. Faith pertains not to the
things that are illusive and transitory, but to the things
which are abiding. “For the things which are seen are
temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal”
(2 Cor. 4:18).
(3) We have never seen God, but we believe that He
is and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him
(Heb. 11:6). We were not present to see the worlds
515
r,
1

GENESIS
created, but our conviction is that they were “framed by
the word of God” (v. 3). We have never seen Christ,
our Elder Brother, but we believe in Him as the One who
Y is abundantly able to save us from sin and mortality.
We
have never had a glimpse of heaven, but we believe that
the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead
dwelleth in us, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead
shall give life also to our mortal bodies through His Spirit
that dwelleth in us (Rom. 8:ll). Therefore we are
exhorted to live by faith, to walk by faith and to die in
the faith.
(4) Illustratiovts from the chapter (Heb. 11). (a)
Abel brought his offering to the altar with the conviction
that the God whom he had never seen, but in whom he
believed, would accept it, v. 4. (b) In Noah’s heart
there was an overwhelming conviction that judgment
would come upon the antediluvian world because of its
wickedness. Although summer and winter, and seedtime
and harvest, continued to come and go as usual for one
hundred and twenty years, he never faltered. Through all
the trying experiences of this period of grace he retained
his conviction. Because that during all these intervening
years there was no evidence in nature of the impending
catastrophe, it was a conviction with respect to things
not seen, v. 7. (c) Abraham left home and kindred and
friends, and started on a strange journey to a land both
-Inknown to him and unseen by him. He had no idea
how far he would have to travel in order to reach it. All
that moved him was a conviction with respect to the far
country and a conviction that God would give it to him
for an inheritance. Vs. 8-12. (d) These fathers of Israel,
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all died in the faith, having
never received the literal fulfilment of the promises. So
far as we know they all died without possessing a single
acre of the land of promise save the few square feet they
516

THE NATURE OF FAITH
had purchased for a burial ground. It seems that as they
continued in their pilgrimage their faith became clearer,
and they began to look beyond the literal to the spiritual
fulfilment of the promise, in the city which hath founda-
tions whose builder and maker is God, vs. 13-16. (e)
Joseph’s conviction with respect to the exodus of his
people from Egypt pertained to an event far in the future,
an event not seen, v. 22. (f) Moses, “the man who saw
an undying flame,” chose to share ill treatment with the
people of God, above the temporary enjoyment of the
pleasures of sin, because he “endured as seeing him who is
invisible” (vs. 23-29). In all these cases, faith was a
conviction with respect to things not seen.
(5) As in the various cases cited from Old Testament
history, so it is with respect to faith in the present dispen-
sation and under the new covenant: (a) our faith must
be something more than mere assent; (b) it must be
genuine conviction in order to work “unto the saving of
the soul”; (c) it must be conviction with respect to things
not seen, viz., God, the Son of God, the Spirit of God,
the future life, heaven, etc.; (d) this faith undergirds all
our spiritual blessings, aspirations and hopes (1 Cor. 2:6-
10).
Coiiclusioii: 1. This iiaspiyed definitioii of faith 2s
perfect mid conzplete. Nothing can be taken from it
without weakening its import. Nothing cart be added to
it that would give it greater force.
2. Christian faith takes in all those convictions with
respect to God, the Son of God, the Word of God, the
Spirit of God, immortality, heaven, and the like; all of
which are eternal realities above and beyond the realm of
time and space. Like Moses, we “endure as seeing him who
is invisible,” “looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter
of our faith” (Heb. 12:2). Like Abraham, we realize
that we are pilgrims and strangers upon this earth, that our
present dwelling places are but the tabernacles of a night-
S 17

GENESIS
time; and, like him, we anticipate a more glorious fulfil-
ment of the promises than would be possible in this world
of places and things (1 Cor, 2:9-10). Our ultimate goal
is that heavenly country towards which he made his pil-
grimage. In the words of Emily Dickinson:
“I never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea,
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.
“1 never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.”
THE SOURCE OF FAITH
(Read Rom. 1O:l-17).
Having ascertained the essential nature of faith (1)
the assurance of things hoped for, and (2) a conviction
with respect to things not seen, we shall now turn our
attention to the source of faith. Whence is the faith
obtained that is “unto the saving of the soul”? We may
find the answer to this important question by turning
again to the cases cited in the eleventh chapter of
Hebrews:
1. Abel, v. 4.
Whence did Abel obtain his convic-
tion that the offering of a sacrifice of blood would be
pleasing to God and would bring him God’s blessing?
Evidently from the word of God. It seems obvious that
God laid down the law of sacrifice as soon as man fell,
in order to establish the principle that “apart from shedding
of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22), Abel, in
bringing an offering in which blood was shed, obeyed the
law; Cain, in bringing the “fruit of the ground,” disobeyed
518

THE SOURCE OF FAITH
it (1 John 3:12), This explains why Abel’s offering was
accepted and Cain’s rejected.
“That this institution was of divine origin is evident
from several considerations: I. We learn from Hebrews
11:4, that Abel offered his sacrifice in faith. But in
Romans 10:17, we are told that ‘faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.’ And hence it follows
that Abel could not have offered in faith without a cornmand
from God , , , 11. It could not have been a human
invention, because Reason can perceive no connection between
the means and the end. It is evidently a positive and
not a moral or natural institution. 111. Its universality
is another proof of its divine origin. Mr. Faber says that
‘throughout the whole world there is a notion prevalent
that the gods can be appeased only by bloody sacrifices.
There is no heathen people,’ he adds, ‘that can specify a
time when they were without sacrifice. All have had it
from a time which is not reached by their genuine records.
Tradition alone can be brought forward to account for
its origin.’ IV. The distinction between clean and unclean
beasts even in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:2) proves also
the divine origin of sacrifice. This is a distinction which
is altogether positive, and which has no foundation in either
reason or philosophy” (Milligan, SR, 67).
2. Enoch, v. 5. Enoch’s walk of faith was evidently
inspired and directed by the word of God (Gen. S:24),
3. Noah, v. 7.
How did Noah obtain his conviction
that an overwhelming deluge would come upon the ante-
diluvian world? How did he obtain the conviction that
in the building of the ark a means of deliverance would be
provided him and his family? Evidently from the word
of God. God told him the flood would come in due time,
God told him to build the ark and how to build it. God
gave him the plans for it. God promised him deliverance
through the instrumentality of the ark. Avd Noah be-
S 19

GENESIS
lieved God. His conviction was inspired not by any manifestation
in nature, but solely by the word of God. See
Gen. 6:13-22, 7:1-5, 8:lJ-17.
4. Abraham, vs. 8-19. Whence did Abraham obtain
his conviction regarding the land to which he journeyed?
Whence did he obtain his belief that this land would be
given him for an inheritance? From the word of God.
See Gen. 12:l-4, 13:14-18, etc. It was God who told him
about the “far country” and promised it to him for an
inheritance. Whence did Abraham and Sarah obtain their
conviction regarding the birth of the “child of promise?”
From the word of God (Gen. 17: 1 5-21). Whence did
Abraham obtain his conviction that God would not allow
Isaac to suffer an untimely end (Heb. 11 : 19) ? From the
word of God. Had not Isaac been miraculously conceived
and born? Were not the details of the Abrahamic promise
to be worked out through him? (Gen. 12:3, 13:16, 17:19,
Heb. 11:18). Cf. Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6, Jas
2:23.
5. Joseph, v. 22. Whence did Joseph obtain his conviction
that his people would leave Egypt and repossess
Canaan? Evidently from God’s promise to Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 12:l-4, 13:14-18, 17:15-21, 26:2-
Sy 28~12-17).
6. Moses, vs. 22-29. From whom did Moses receive
his commission to lead his people out of% bondage?
whom did he receive the Law “ordained through angels
by the hand of a mediator” (Gal. 3:19)? From God
Himself. See Exo. 3:l-4:17, 20:1-26, Deut. 5:l-33, etc.
Who was his constant Guide and Protector through all
those terrible marches in the wilderness? Who rained
manna from heaven upon the starving people? Who
guided them by means of a cloud by day and a pillar of
fire by night? Moses constantly “endured, as seeing him
who is invisible.”
520

THE SOURCE OF FAITH
7. Joshda, v. 29. Whence did Joshua obtain his
confidence that the walls of Jericho would fall? From
Jehovah’s word, He went to God for a war program, in
his extremity, and God supplied it (Josh. 6: 1-20) .
8. Rahab, v. 30. Whence did Rahab obtain her belief
that she should give aid and succor to the men of Joshua’s
army? Evidently from her knowledge of God’s promises
and judgments (John. 2:9-21, 6:22-25, Jas. 2:25).
9. The creation, v. 3. Whence do we obtain our
belief that our physical universe was the materialization
of God’s word? Our conviction that “what is seen hath
not been made out of things which appear” (i.e., that this
universe was not fashioned out of pre-existing materials,
as the evolutionists and materialists contend) ? From the
word of God. (See Psa. 33:6, 9; 148:5, etc. Note that
the expression, “God said,” is found ten consecutive times
in Gen. 1. Cf. also John 1:l-3, Heb. 1:l-3, 2 Pet. 3:5-8,
etc.) .
10. Other great heroes and heroines of faith, vs. 32-
39. All received their inspiration to deeds of heroism
from the attractions and impulsions of God’s word. So,
then, belief cometh of hearing the divine word, as our
text says. Believers in all ages endure as seeing Him who
is invisible.
Conclusio~i: So much for the examples from Old
Testament history. But what about the faith that oper-
ates unto the salvation of the soul, in the present dispensa-
tion, under the new covenant?
1. From what source do we obtain our belief that
God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after
Him (Heb. 11:6)? From the testimony ,about Him as
revealed and recorded in Scripture. From the complete
and perfect revelation of Him afforded us in the person
and work of Jesus Christ, whom to know aright is eternal
life. John 15:9-11, 1 Cor. 2:6-16, Heb. 1:l-3, 1 Pet.
1:3-12, etc.
J21

GENESIS
2. From what source do we obtain our conviction that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? From the
testimony presented in the Scriptures, particularly that of
the gospel records. This is our only source of accurate in-
formation about Him, See John 17:20, John 20:30-31,
Acts 15:7, Acts 17:ll-12, etc. Why should me reject the
testimony of these competent eye-witnesses, these men who
walked and talked and supped with Him, and listen to the
quibblings of half-baked professors removed from Him by
a span of twenty centuries?
3. Whence do we obtain our convictions respecting
the future life and its rewards and retributions? From the
testimony of Scripture? From the great and exceeding
precious promises of God.
4. Rom. 10:17. Hear the conclusion of the whole
matter. Faith does not come by feeling, nor by a direct
operation of the Spirit, nor in answer to prayer, but faith
does come by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:6-8,
1 Thess. 2:13).
* :+ * :$ :.r
THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
(Heb. 11:l-19, esp. v. 13)
One of the most illustrious characters of ancient times
to whom our attention is called by the writer of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, is Abraham, the father of the Hebrew
people.
Abraham’s life and walk were so eminently motivated
by faith, that his name has gone down in sacred history
as the Father of the Faithful, and as the Friend of God
(Rom. 4:17, Gal. 3:29, Isa. 41:8, 2 Chron. 20:7, Jas.
2:23).
1. Note, in the first place, that Abraham’s whole life
was a pilgrjmfige of faith.
(I) It was by faith that he first went out from his
native borne, Ur of the Chuldees. As faith comes from
522

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17), so he went out
in respome to God’s comnaizd (cf. Gen. 12: 1-3 ) . He did
not go out in consequence of any urge within himself,
but solely in obedience to God. “By faith Abraham, when
he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was
to receive for an inheritance” (Heb. 11 : 8).
(2) By faith he made his initial Pilgrimage from Ur
of Cbaldea to the lavd of promise. As faith is a convic-
tion with respect to thiirgs not seeiz (Heb. 11:l) , he there-
fore “went out not knowing whither he went” (v. 8).
Commenting on this verse, Milligan says: “Here we have
given the fact that.Abraham received a call from God;
that by his call he was required to leave his home and
kindred in Ur of Chaldea, and go out into a strange land;
that this land, though promised to his posterity, was wholly
unknown to him at the time; and that he nevertheless
obeyed God, and went out of his own country, not know-
ing whither he went” (Milligan, NTCH, in loco.)
(3) By faith “he became a sojourizer in the land of
promise, as in a laiid not his owfz,’’ etc. It would seem
from this that Abraham never regarded Canaan as his
home. He knew of course, by faith, that when the Ca-
naanites should have filled up the cup of their iniquity
to the full, in the fourth generation, the land would be
given to his posterity for an everlasting possession, as indeed
it was in the time of Joshua (Gen. 15 : 12-21 ) . But until
that time neither he nor his seed, he realized, had any rights
or privileges there beyond what might have been accorded
other strangers under like circumstances. (Cf. Acts 7:f).
Hence Abraham died without owning a foot of the land
other than the cave of Machpelah, which he purchased
from Ephron the Hittite for a burying-ground (Gen.
23 :3-20) ; and hence, also, neither he, nor Isaac, nor Jacob,
ever established a permanent residence in the country.
They were satisfied to live in movable tents, feeling assured
that “according to the promise,” they were to fall heir to
. .. .
J23

. l
c<
GENESIS ’ ’,’
a better inheritance than any that & to be found on this
earth.
(4) By faith be looked beyon2 the literal to the
spiritual fulfilmefit of the promise. “For he looked for
the city which hath the foundations,”-etc. (Heb. 11 :9-10).
“From this and other like passages ’we’ are‘ constrained to
think that God had given the patriarchs. information with
regard to the heavenly country, far’ beyofid what is now
recorded in Genesis or any other part .of the Old Testa-
ment. What we find there at present was written for
our instruction, as well as for the benefit of the ancients
(Rom. 15:4). But much may haye. been said to them
which would in no way benefit us; #and which was, there-
fore, excluded from the Canon by Mbses, Ezra and other
inspired writers. The origin of sacrifice, for instance, is
nowhere expressly mentioned in the Old Testament; nor is
there anything said in it respecting the origin of the
Patriarchal priesthood. Information, clear, full, and ex-
plicit, on all such matters, was of course needed by the
ancients; but for us the more general instructions of the
Bible are quite sufficient. And so, also, we think it was
with respect to the heavenly country. The Patriarchs seem
to have received revelations concerning it which have never
been transmitted to us; for it is obvious that Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, lived in constant expectation of entering
it at the close of their earthly pilgrimage. They were
satisfied to live here as strangers and pilgrims, knowing that
they had in heaven a city having permanent foundations
whose Architect and Framer is God. This city is mani-
festly the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:28, Heb. 12:22,
13: 14) , Which for the present is located in heaven, but
which will hereafter descend to the earth after the latter
shall have been renovated by fire (Rev. 2 1 ) , Then will
be fulfilled in its full and proper sense the promise made
to Abraham, that he and his seed should be the heirs of
the world (Rom. 4:13) ” (Milligan, ibid.).
524

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
“In the land of fadeless day,
Lies ‘the city four-square’;
It shall never pass away,
And ther is ‘no night there.’
God shall ‘wipe away all tears,’
There’s no death, no pain nor fears,
And they cqunt not time by years,
For there is ‘no night there.’ ”
(5) By faith he anticijated the birth of the “child of
jroniise)’ (Heb. 11:11-12, Gal. 4:23, Gen. 17:1j-21, 18:9-
15, 21:1-7), The miraculous conception and birth of
Isaac, typical in respect to its supernaturaliiess of that of
Jesus, were direct fulfilments of the promise of Jehovah
which Abraham believed. In this respect Abraham’s faith
was even greater than Sarah’s, who, on being told, at
ninety years of age and long after she had passed the age
of child-bearing, that she should give birth to a son, re-
ceived the announcement at first with considerable in-
credulity (Gen. 18:9-15).
(6) By faith he offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah,
“accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the
dead; from whence he did also in a figure receive him
back” (Heb. 11:17-19). Abraham’s faith was such that he
knew that the promise of God (Gen. 17:21, 21:12) could
not and would not fail, “and as he could not anticipate
that God would interfere, as He did, so as to prevent the
immolation of his son, there was really left for him no
alternative other than simply to conclude that God would
restore Isaac to life. This conviction seems to be implied in
the remark which he made to his servants, ‘Abide ye here
with the ass, and I and the lad will go yonder and worship,
and come again.’ The word rendered coigze again (we will
ret74rrt) is in the plural number, and seems to indicate a
belief on the part of Abraham, that God would immediately
raise Isaac up again from the dead’’ (Milligan, ibid.) The
525

GENESIS ‘$L* :’“
account of this, the severest trial .and consequently th3
supreme manifestation of Abraham’s, faith, is related in
Gen. 22:l-14).
(7) Having walked in faith, he likewise “died in. fhth,
not having received the promises but having seen them and
greeted them from afar,’’ etc. What,mere -the “promises?yy
(a) That Abraham should have a, fiurnerous offspring
(Gen. 13:16, 15:3-5, 17:2-4, 22:16)’; (b) that God would
be a God to him and to his seed after him (Gen. 17: 118) ;
(c) that He would give to him and his seed an everlasting
inheritance (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15~8-21, ,17:8) ; (d) that
through him and his seed, all the:nations of the earth
should be blessed (Gen. 2:3, 22:?
these four details, Abraham looked
their spiritual fulfilment. “To each of ’these God attached
a double significance. . . . They each’consisted, so to speak,
of two elements, one of which had reference to the carnal
side of the covenant, and the other to the spiritual side;
one to the type, and the other to the antitype. Thus
Abraham was made the honored father of two families: to
each of which an inheritance was promised, and through
each of which the world was to be blessed” (Milligan,
ibid.). Abraham, it would seem, understood all this,
understood by faith that the spiritual side of the promise
would be realized through his seed, the Messiah, and consequently
rejoiced to “see his day, and he saw it, and was
glad” (John 8:56). (Cf. Gal. 4:21-31, 3:6-13, etc.)
Hence, he died in faith, knowing that the promise in its
various details would be worked out according to God’s
eternal purpose and plan. Hence, too, by his constant life
and walk of faith, he admitted that he did not seek a
home on this earth, that here he considered himself merely
a stranger and sojourner, that he did not expect to enter
into possession of his true home until he should have
reached the end of his pilgrimage and been received into
a better country than this, i.e., heaven itself. Vherefore
526

I
I
THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
,God approved aiid rewarded the faith of Abraham, and of
Isaac and Jacob as well, by preparing for their inhabita-
tion, and for all the redeemed of all ages, a city whose
foundations had, even in their day, been laid prospectively
in the blood of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 12:22-24).
2. Note, in the secoiid Place, that Abraham’s Pilgrim-
age of faith was desigmd to be typical of the believer’s
joww y.
(1) “A voyage to a distaiit land”-sucb is the life of
every Christian believer.
“Our life is like the hurrying on the eve
Before we start on‘some long journey bound,
When fit preparing to the last we leave,
Then run to every room the dwelling round,
And sigh that nothing needed can be found;
Yet go we must, and soon as day shall break;
We snatch an hour’s repose; when loud the sound
For our departure calls; we rise and take
A quick and sad farewell, and go ere well awake.”
(2) Here we walk by faith, and not by sight, if we
are true Christians. Though in the world, we are not of
the world, The worldly spirit deals with things present,
but the spirit of faith anticipates the more glorious “things
to come.” The worldly spirit is neither far-reaching nor
far-sighted. Its range is bounded by the horizon of time
aiid sense. It has no wings with which to soar into realms
invisible. It is of the earth, earthly. Whence comes the
manna? why gushes the water from the rock? whither
guides the pillar of cloud and fire?-these are questions it
never asks. It knows not how to soar, how to anticipate
and trust aiid wait, how to endure as seeing Him who is
invisible, how to repose under the shadow of His wings,
unmindful of the dangers of the wilderness and unalarmed
by foes. But the heavenly-minded man walks by faith-
that faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and
li 27

GENESIS 74
L u-*
a conviction with respect to things not seen. And, among
all the great verities which possess. hi$ soul there is none
greater, none nobler, none surer, than his conviction with
respect to the saints’ everlasting home, All the circumstances
of his present journey, all the remembrances, all
his reasonings, all his aspirations, point’ tb a Better Land.
By faith he sings: e 1
- I f
“There is a land of pure dc$igJt,
Where saints immortal reign,
Infinite day excludes the night, I
And pleasures bani& pain.
There everlasting spring’ abides
And never-withering flowers;
Death, like a narrow sea, divides
This heavenly land from ours.”
(3) We realize that LTS far as this present life is colz-
ceraed we are but strangers &nd sojozcrners on the earth.
We dwell in tents, as did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in
the tabernacles of a night-time. We are here today, and
gone tomorrow. There is nothing that we possess here
that we can really call our own. All that we shall have in
the end is a few square feet of earth in which our mortal
remains will be laid away to mingle with the dust. This
k not sentimentaity-if is plain fact. We can’t take any-
thing material with us into the next world, for the simple
reason that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God. No matter how diligently we may toil and strive
to accumulate houses and lands and worldly goods, of what
value will these things be when we reach the end of the
road? We are pilgrims, nothing more, walking by faith
in the direction of the heavenly country which we expect
to reach beyond the swelling of the Jordan, the country
that will truly be, “Home, Sweet Home.” The true Chris-
tian philosophy is expressed by Phoebe Carey in these lines:
528

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
“One sweetly solemn thought
Comes to me o’er and o’er:
I am nearer my home today
Than 1 have ever been before.
“Nearer my Father’s house
Where the many mansions be;
Nearer the great white throne,
Nearer the crystal sea.
“Nearer the bound of life,
Where we lay our burdens down;
Nearer leaving the cross,
Nearer gaining the crown.”
(4) Observation teaches us that much in this life is
inequality find injustice. As far as this world alone is
concerned, honesty is not always the best policy, Judas
fares about as well as John, and Nero quaffs more of the
wine of “living” than Paul. The voice of experience
speaks to us that if this life is all, it is scarcely worth the
living. In the words of Robert Browning:
“Truly there needs be another life to come!
If this be all
And another life await us not for one,
I say, ‘Tis a poor cheat, a stupid bungle,
A wretched failure, I for one protest
Against, and I hurl it back with scorn.”
(5) Life as we live it here is largely illusion. (See F,
W. Robertson, Serwzons, “The Illusiveness of Life”), Our
seizses deceive us. They deceive us with respect to distance,
shape, and color. That which, afar off, seems to be oval,
turns out to be circular when modified by the perspective
of distance; that which appears to be a speck, becomes a
vast body, on nearer approach. Stand in the middle of a
railroad track, and look in either direction, and the rails
F 29

GENESIS
appear to converge; but they do not actually do so. Look
at what we call the horizon and it seems that the earth and
sky meet, but they do not actual1
berry turns out to be bitter and
apparently moves is in reality at r
be stationary is in perpetual moti
the sun, which appears to be mo
experience here is but a correction?
modification or reversal of the judgment of the senses.
Our natural anticipations deceive us. Every hitman life
starts out bright with hopes that will never be realized.
These hopes may be different in nature: finer spirits may
look on life as an arena for good =deeds, while the more
selfish regard it as a place only for personal enjoyment;
but the results are usually the same. Regardless of the
nature of these hopes, the majority will fail of fruition.
It would seem almost a satire on life to compare the youth
in the outset of his career, flushed and sanguine, with the
aspect of the same man when he is nearly done, worn,
sobered, covered with the dust of life, confessing that its
days have been few and evil. Where is the land flowing
with milk and honey? Not on this earth. With our
affections it is even worse. Man’s affections are but taber-
nacles of Canaan, the tents of a nighttime, never the same,
always changing. Where are the charms of character, the
perfection and purity and truthfulness which seemed so
resplendent in our friend? Association has rendered them
sordid. They were only our conceptions and they proved
false; hence we outgrow friendships. Life as we live it
here is an unenjoyable Canaan with nothing real or sub-
stantial about it. Our expectations, resting m divine reve-
lation, deceive us. For example, the attitude of the church
with respect to the second coming of Christ. The apostles
expected Him to return while they were yet here, and the
early churches were vitalized by this hope of seeing the
great and notable day of the Lord. John, in penning the
530

THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
last words of the New Testament, expressed this hope,
“Come, Lord Jesus.” The church, throughout the centuries
of the Christian era, has revived and revitalized this hope
many times; in fact Et has never died away. And even
today, if it should turn out that “we who are alive” shall
“remain unto the coming of the Lord,” we would consider
ourselves fortunate indeed. However, He has not come.
He will come-but not as yet. The promise, “This Jesus
shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into
heaven,” remains unfulfilled. What is the meaii,ing of all
this illu,siueizess of earthly life? Faith replies that it is not
delusion, but illusion; that the non-fulfilment of the
promises literally, is a pledge of their spiritual fulfilment
later; that God, by their very non-realization, lures us
onward and upward to nobler things. Suppose, for in-
stance, that the spiritual side of the Abr>ahamic promise had
been revealed to ancient Israel at first; suppose they had
been informed at the outset that God’s rest is inward, that
the land of promise is to be found only in the Jerusalem
which is above; not material, but immaterial; not visible,
but invisible. That rude, gross people, yearning after the
flesh-pots of Egypt, willing to go back into slavery so only
they might have enough to eat and drink-would they have
quitted Egypt on such terms? Would they have taken one
step on that pilgrimage which was to find its meaning in
the discipline of the ages? No-they had to be lured on
by something visible, something tangible. So we are lured
on through life as upoiz a journey. Could man see the
route before him-a flat, straight road, unbroken by tree
or eminence, with the sun’s heat burning down upon it,
stretching out in dreamy monotony-he could scarcely
find either the inclination or the energy with which to
begin his journey. It is the very uncertainty of that which
is not seen, that which lies just around the bend, that keeps
expectation alive. The view we think we may get from
yonder summit, the landscape that may be glimpsed as
531

GENESIS
the road winds around yonder knoll,. hopes like these be;
guile the weary traveler on. So our heavenly Father leads
us on, educating us day by day, and hour by hour, to walk
in faith, ever holding up the seen as an incentive to the
unseen. So He deals with us, luring us on by means of
life’s unsatisfactory and illusive rewards, ever schooling us
in the art of waiting, of enduring as. seeing Him who is
invisible. Canaan first; then the hope of a Redeemer;
and finally the Better Land. It was in this manner that
the ancient saints ifiterpreted this mysiery of the illusive-
ness of life. They did not regard li€e as a dream, nor as
a bubble, nor as a delusion. Though they no doubt felt
as keenly as any moralist could feel; the brokenness of its
promises, yet by faith they pressed on, confessing that they
were pilgrims and strangers here, that they had no con-
tinuing city, never mournfully moralizing about it, but
admitting it cheerfully and even rejoicing that it was so.
They felt that all was right; they knew that the promise
had a deeper than material significance; so they looked for
the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker
is God. They even died in faith, not having received the
promises, not expecting to receive them here, but hereafter.
Now observe the glorious result that comes from the in-
destructible power of believing and continuing on, in spite
of apparefit failure. The primitive Christians, for instance,
believed in their day that the millenium was at hand. They
had heard the apostolic warning, brief and clear, to
“watch.” Now suppose, instead of this, they had been
able to look into the future and see all the dreary pages of
church history unfolded, with its heresies, its apostasy and
divisions; suppose they could have known that even after
two thousand years the world would scarcely know the
alphabet of the Christian religion; knowing all these things,
what would have become of their gigantic and heroic
efforts, their sacrifices, their persecutions and their martyr-
doms? With such knowledge of the future, do you sup-
532

I
THE PILGRIMAGE OF FAITH
I pose there ever would’ have been what we consider the
I heroism, the sacrifice, the passionate zeal of primitive
l Christianity? It is in this way that God leads His children
on, on to realization and achievement through the
illusiveness of the past; as a father educates his child, holding
up the seen, all the while nurturing the thought of the
unseen. Thus we shall continue to the end-to that day
when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms
of our God and His Christ. Thus the non-fulfilment
of God’s promises becomes to the mm of faith an earnest
of their deeper and nobler fulfilment.
(6) Finally, as in Abraham’s case, beauen is the goal
of our pilgrimage. We expect to find illusion here, and
we expect to find reality hereafter. We know that things
here are seen and temporal, and we know, too, that the
things we shall enjoy hereafter, the things that are now
unseen, will be eternal. Interpreted, then, in the light of
faith, life’s illusioizs are not disappointing; in fact nothing
is disappoiuctment if spiritually discerned. Wherefore God
is not ashamed to be called our God; for “he hath prepared
for us a city” (Heb. 11 : 16) .
“There’s a land that is fairer than day,
And by faith we can see it afar,
For the Father waits over the way,
To prepare us a dwelling-place there.”
Just recently Dr. F. B. Meyer, one of England’s
greatest preachers, entered into rest. Writing to a friend
just three days before his death, this is what he said: “Dear
Friend: I have just been told, to my surprise, that my days
on earth are numbered. It may be that before you receive
this letter, I shall have passed within the Palace of the
King. Do not trouble to write.
I will meet you in the
morning. Yours, with much love, F. B. Meyer.”
“I will meet you in the morning”--“within the palace
of the King,” This is Christian faith. This is conviction,
$33

GENESIS
Death isn’t the end, it is the beginning, the beginning of
greater growth, greater progress, greater service, and
greater joy. As Louise Chandler Moulton has written:
“At the end of Love, at the end of Life,
At the end of Hope, at the end of Strife,
At the end of all that we cling to so-
The sun is setting-ust we go?
“At dawn of Love, at Dawn of Life,
At dawn of Peace that follows Strife,
At dawn of all we long for so-
The sun is rising--let us go!”
Conclusion: “Wherefore God is not ashamed of them,
to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a
city.” This is the promise! And God keeps His promises!
“How beautiful to be with God,
When earth is fading like a dream,
And from this mist-encircled shore
To launch upon the unknown stream!
No doubt, no fear, no anxious care,
But, comforted by staff and rod,
In the faith-brightened hour of death,
How beautiful to be with God.
“Beyond the partings and the pains,
Beyond the sighing and the tears,
Oh, beautiful to be with God
Through all the endless, blessed years-
To see His face, to hear His voice,
To know Him better day by day,
And love Him as the flowers love light,
And serve Him as immortals may.”
My sinner friend, will you not turn now, and start
upon your pilgrimage of faith?
534